Institute a program of tuition waivers for all under-represented and .... includes goals, environment, technology, formal structure and group-individual factors. Our ...
1
-
1
-.
:
'
-
.
-
--7" . .
WORKING P A P E R S E R I E S RACISM I N HIGHER EDUCATION I : AH OIGMIZATIONAL MALY S I S b y MARK A. CHESLER and JAMES CROWFOOT P C W WORKING CRSO WORKING PAPER # 2 1 PAPER 0 4 1 2 November 1 9 8 9
The Program on Conflict Management A l t e r n a t i v e s a t The University of Hichigan
THE PROGRAM ON CONFLICT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Program on Conflict Management Alternatives was established in January, 1986 by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and additional funds from the University of Michigan. These basic grants were renewed in July, 1988 and again in July, 1991. The Program supports an agenda of research, application, and theory development. PCMA also establishes llnks among other university research and teaching efforts relevant to conflict management alternatives, and maintains liaison and collaboration with similar efforts in other Universities and Practitioner agencies. The Program staffers own work focuses explicitly on the relationship between social justice and social conflict, specifically: (a) the use of innovative settlement procedures and roles for disputants and third parties; (b) the institutionalization of ~movative mechanisms and the adoption of organizational and community structures that permanently alter the way conflicts are managed; and (c) the fundamental differences and inequalities between parties that often create conflict and threaten its stable resolution. We examine these issues primarily in United States' settings, in conflicts arising within and between families, organizations and communities, and between different racial, gender, and economic constituencies. These specific efforts are supported by a variety of research and action grants/contracts with governmental agencies, foundations, and private and public organizations/agencies. .
The Program in Conflict Management Alternatives is housed within the Center for Research on Social Organization, College of Literature, Science and the Arts, Room 4016 LS&A Building, Telephone: (313) 763-0472. Core Faculty of the Program
T. Alexander Alienikoff, Professor of Law Frances Aparicio, Associate Professor of Spanish & American Culture Percy Bates, Director, PEO, Professor of Education Barry Checkoway, Professor of Social Work Mark Chesler, Co-Director, PCMA and Professor of Sociology James Crowfoot, Professor of Natural Resources and Urban Regional Planning Elizabeth Douvan, Professor of Psychology Barbara Israel, Associate Professor, School of Public Health Edith Lewis, Co-Director, PCMA and Associate Professor, School of Social Work David Schoem, Assistant Dean for the Freshmen and Sophomore Years and Lecturer in Sociology, College of =&A Sharon Sutton, Associate Professor of Architeture Helen Weingarten, Associate Professor, School of Social Work
RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION I: AN ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
Mark A. Chesler and James Crowfoot
RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION I: AN ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS*
I. INTRODUCTION Complexity, contradiction and confusion are paramount in American race relations. Our national history is fraught with contradictory messages about "equal rights" and "slavery," about "equality of opportunity" and the "reproduction of poverty," about "affirmative action" and "reverse discrimination." Overriding this confusion, our history of racial injustice is maintained through contemporary policies and practices, and is reflected in the dramatic differentials in life expectancy, opportunity and other outcomes that still exist between people of color and white persons. In addition, in order to defend and sustain the moral imperative of democracy and equality, we have created ideologies that legitimate and justify these racial differentials a s reflections of minority inadequacy or a s aberrations from the otherwise fair workings of an open and meritorious political and economic system. As a result, even people who perceive obvious racial inequalities often find it difficult to recognize the injustice embedded in these inequalities. It is hard to act with fairness when we do not understand the basis upon which fairness applies, or what it even means when applied to people of color and to situations involving racial inequality. If individuals' moral choices regarding racial relations and racial injustice are generally difficult, they are even more difficult when set within an organizational context. Here there are collective a s well a s individual choices to make, and actors must act amidst diffuse (and often impersonal) organizational criteria and competing claims. Moreover, the organizational imperative often requires individual claims (moral, economic and otherwise) to be subordinated to collective priorities. Sometimes organizational rules and cultures are so pervasive that there is an inability to perceive realities other than those posed or promulgated by the organization, or if choices are perceived people are unable to act on them. Nevertheless, organizational actors must make "This working paper is a revised and expanded version of a chapter prepared for ETHICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, edited by W. May (Macmillan, 1990). We plan to complement it later with another working paper, "Racism in higher education 11: Designing and implementing organizational change".
2
decisions, allocate resources and adjudicate competing claims. To the extent that organizations play powerful roles in providing their members and customers with access to vital life resources and opportunities, these decisions are profoundly moral and have crucial and lasting consequences. Organizations propagate (implicitly or explicitly) frameworks within which individuals operating in the name or context of the organization make choices and engage in formal and informal behavior. Most organizations go further; they provide quite specific rewards and sanctions for behavior that is deemed to be appropriate or inappropriate (e.g., with regard .to white collar crime, pursuit of prudent decisions in the interest of stockholders, sexual harassment on the job, stealing competitors' secrets, bribery that serves the organization's welfare, whistle blowing that surfaces malfeasance, etc.). Some organizations, moreover, have an explicitly moral agenda: school systems, particularly, have a goal of preparing the young to recognize moral issues and to make choices consistent with the values of prior generations. Colleges and universities are.at the apex of educational systems, and a s the secularization of society has progressed, they have increasingly replaced churches and synagogues a s purveyors of core values and standards. The public often expects organizations of higher education to embody and articulate traditional moral values and to prepare students for exemplary lives. When the complex realities of organizational life are joined with the confusing and often contradictory nature of race relations in American life, we enter very difficult territory. Clear understanding of relevant racial issues, let alone a capacity for wise and appropriate behavior, is
difficult. The sheer invisibility of racism to white people makes it difficult to perceive (and correctly interpret) the reality of organizational life a s it exists for people of color. Since this invisibility is historic a s well a s contemporary, white people also often are blind to their enmeshment in well established patterns of racial advantage and disadvantage, and to the privileges they and their ancestors have gained thereby. Without such clarity, or pressures to be .
clear, it is hard to own and take personal or orgnizational responsibility for injustice, or for the need to strive for justice. Thus, patterns of institutional racism often operate without white people being aware of them and without their conscious intent. Nevertheless, these patterns of racism
reproduce themselves: they are aided by the ways in which people with power and advantage in the society, white people and people with wealth, cannot see racism clearly, deny responsibility for action to remove it, and thus passively if not actively contribute to the maintenance of the status quo. One essential component of morally appropriate behavior is an ability to see the issues clearly: in the context of organizational racism that means clarity about the organization's impact on peoples' options, the existence and operation of racism in the organization, and the role and impact of racism in the lives of people of color and white people. As noted, what is hard to perceived a t a personal level is even harder to see clearly a t an organizational level, where individual capacities for clarity and responsibility often are obscured by organizational rules and norms. Without such clarity and responsibility, the potential for sound organizational decision making and implementation of decisions - including those necessary to achieve change - is virtually non-existent.
Our purpose in this paper is to contribute to an understanding of race relations and racism, and actions to combat racism, in institutions of higher education. We do so by conducting a conceptually based diagnosis and analysis of the operations of racism in typical colleges and universities. This analysis grows out of our work a s white male faculty members and administrators a t a major university. These background and role characteristics shape our perspectives in certain ways, and undoubtedly in ways that differ from those of people of a different race, status, gender, etc. Our hope in this paper is to more beyond a discussion of white peoples' individual attitudes and behaviors, or guilt and responsibility, or choice and non-choice; we focus on racism occurring a t an organizational level
-- institutional racism.
Moreover, we place
organizational/ institutional racism in the context of the specific activities and operations of colleges and universities, relatively unique kinds of organizations. The potential for organizational change to reduce racism also is described briefly.
4
11. FROM INDIVIDUAL INCIDENTS TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM Numerous scholars and activists have drawn attention to the historic state of race relations and racial injustice in American higher education (Astin, 1982; Blauner, 1972; Clark and Plotkin, 1963; Fleming e t al, 1978; Peterson et al, 1978; Thomas, 1981; Vetter e t al, 1982). Many of these early efforts were spurred by the turbulence of the late 1960s and early 1970s. As relative "peace" returned to the campus, however, concern with these issues gradually receded. Fiscal crises, debates about appropriate public-sector private-sector relationships, potential declines in student applications and other issues became more important. Recent events have spurred new empirical and political analyses of institutional racism in our colleges and universities (Allen, 1986; Steele, 1989; Sudarkasa, 1988; Wilson and Carter, 1988). Recent attention to racism on campus has been galvanized by a series of noteworthy public "incidents." Included among these incidents reported at 174 different colleges (Bayh, 1989) have been the following: Citadel - A group of white students dressed in white sheets and hoods threatened a Black cadet with racial obscenities and a burnt cross. Dartmouth - White students destroyed shanties erected in protest of corporate investment in South Africa. Macalester College - The room of five Asian women was vandalized with the letters KKK written on the door. Michigan State University - Threatening phone calls and written messages were received by students of color. University of Massachusetts - Physical attacks were made on Black students by a mob of white students. The University of Michigan - Black women were harassed in dormitories with flyers announcing an intention to "get them" and suggesting they go back to Africa. University of Mississippi
- Arson destroyed a Black fraternity house.
-
University of Wisconsin A group of fraternity men held a mock auction of Black slaves with white pledges wearing blackface and Afro wigs. Yale University - A swastika and racist comments were written on the Afro-American cultural center.
5
When first noted by administrators and faculty, many of these incidents were described as accidents, a s departures from norms of civility and justice, or a t least tolerance, prevailing on our campuses; indeed, they often were analyzed a s not being "racial incidents" a t all, but a s instances of drunkenness, playfulness or political protest (e.g. Hurst, 1987). Moreover, they were seen a s evidence of problems residing in the student community, reflecting ill on the state of mind of American college youth. And finally, they often were analyzed a s individual actions, a s the behaviors of dne or a small group of individuals who were presumed to be ignorant, prejudiced, filled with hate or perhaps partially deranged. I t is of course true that growing up in America predisposes most white people to ignorance, indifference and fear or antipathy toward people of color. For some, this is learned through deliberate instruction a t home and in school, instruction explicitly designed to maintain racial distance and to pass on accumulated social lessons regarding the inferiority of people of color. For others, this is incidental learning, messages gathered a s a result of seeing how people of color are treated a s systematically inferior and undeserving of the privileges and advantages of an f l u e n t society. For our society to maintain the illusion that it is democratic and just, the young must perceive the oppressed position of people of color as their own due, a s the deserved result of their own inadequacies. In a n uncertain world, these lessons have great psychic and social import,
'
protecting us from our own insecurities a s well a s from the intrusion of others and discomforting ideas. Thus, the workings of institutional racism are deeply embedded in the psyches of white people, a s well a s in the structure of social, political, and economic relationships. They also impact on these psychic and social structures in ways that maintain and reproduce inequality over generations. We suggest, however, that those analytic frames that focus primarily on prejudice, or that depend primarily on individual or incidental explanations of racism, are inadequate and thereby erroneous. More than that, they serve to distract attention from the true nature of racism on the university campus. What is real is neither incidental nor accidental; what is real is not located
merely in the minds and. actions of a few students; what is real is not solely individual ignorance or prejudice. What is real is institutional racism on campus, just a s institutional racism is real throughout the warp and woof of the American society. The path to a reanalysis of these phenomena, from explanations of individual incidents to explanations of institutional structure and process, often is provided in the extended nature of the incidents themselves, and in campus responses to them. For instance, in response to incidents occurring a t the University of Michigan in early 1987, groups of students of color presented the University administration with the series of proposals/demands illustrated in Figure 1. Examination of the demands makes it obvious that these students have discerned some of the organizational roots of the incidents of individual racism practiced by white students. Indeed, the proposals focus on changes in the programs and structures of the University, and not solely on the behavior of students. In follow-up conversations and confrontations, these students have identified the behaviors (and non-behaviors) of faculty and administrators that encourage, permit or tolerate (even unconsciously) continued harassment and discrimination against students of color. This list is in many ways quite similar to the list of demands presented to the University of Michigan administration by the original Black Action Movement, in 1970 (see Figure 2). The similarity of concerns, and therefore demands, is not surprising, since the character of racism a t most colleges and universities has remained quite similar to the situation in 1970. Responses made a t that time focused on new services, but not on changing the institutional basis of racism. The result has been a continuation of the conditions of disadvantage and discrimination that have led again to overt conflict and protest in the late 1980s. For instance, when incidents of racial harassment surfaced a t the University of Michigan, and when students of color voiced their concerns and grievances, most academic Deans and senior officials of the University expressed shock and surprise a t the level and consistency of humiliation and discrimination these students reported. For so many well-meaning officials to be so poorlyinformed about the experiences of this constituency is in itself revealing. It suggests, of course,
Figure 1: SELECTED STUDENT PROPOSALS/DEMANDS TO COUNTER RACISM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN *
UCAR Anti-Racist Proposals Submit a specific plan to guarantee a substantial increase in black student enrollment. Establish an Office of Minority Affairs with an autonomous supervisory commission elected by the minority campus community. Create a Financial Aid Appeals Board to make sure no student is forced out of the University because of economic discrimination. Establish a mandatory workshop on racism and diversity for all incoming students. Set up a program of orientation for minority students to meet and talk with already enrolled minority students and faculty to minimize feelings of isolation. Institute a program of tuition waivers for all under-represented and economically disadvantaged minority students until the goals for minority enrollment are realized. Create a Minority Student Lounge and Office in the Michigan Union where minority students can meet in a comfortable and supportive atmosphere on a regular basis. Establish a required course on diversity and bigotry to be taken by all matriculated students before graduation from the University, with input from the Center for Afroamerican and African studies. Full observance of the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday including cancellation of classes and the closing of offices. Honorary degree for S. African leader Nelson Mandela at May commencement. Full, public and immediate investigation of all reported incidents of racial harassment, and a mechanism set up, to facilitate the on-going reporting and documentation of such incidents.
"This list of proposals from the United Coalition Against Racism is similar to a series of demands/proposals also made in the Winter of 1987 by the Black Action Movement III and the Hispanic Student Association.
Figure 2: SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL BAM DEMANDS (1970)*
1. Ten percent black enrollment by Fall, 1973; 2. Nine- hundred new black students by Fall, 1971 - 450 freshmen, 250 transfers, 300 graduate students;
3. An adequate supportive services program including financial aid to finance black students' education; 4. Graduate and undergraduate recruiters (9) to recruit black students; 5. A referendum on the March Student Government Council ballot to have students vote on assessing themselves $3.00 for one year for the Martin Luther King Scholarship Fund;
6. Tuition waivers for minority group students who are also residents of the state of Michigan;
7. The establishment of a Community-located Black Student Center; 8. All work of a permanent nature on the Black Studies program is to be halted until an effective input is fully developed by a Community-University forum;
9. The creation of a University-wide appeal board to rule on the adequacy of financial aid grants to students; 10. A revamping of the Parent's Confidential Statement; 11. There should be one recruiter for Chicano students to assure 50 Chicano students by
Fall, 1970; 12. Black students are to be referred to as Black and not a s Negro or anything else
'From materials prepared and distributed by the Black Action Movement.
.
that academic administrators (and often much of the faculty a s well) are out of touch with and ignorant about student life in general, and of the conditions faced by students of color in particular. This lack of information is neither accidental nor individual. I t is socially constructed ignorance, and is created by the separate cultures, life experiences and responsibilities of whites and of people of color - in the society, in the neighborhood and in the University. Moreover, it is ignorance that was permitted to exist because most individuals did not inquire pro-actively into the conditions of life of students of color: there was no payoff for such concern and no sanctions for such ignorance. The situation at the University of Michigan is instructive, but not, we think, unique.* The institutional racism existing a t the University of Michigan is quite probably no greater or lesser than that which exists at many other major institutions of higher education. What may be different a t Michigan, bowever, is the University's tradition of student activism, and of student leadership in highlighting and protesting various campus and societal problems. Thus, these challenges to racism, and learning about it a s well a s changing it, are more publically and vigorously debated, advocated, and resisted.
In an analysis of the 1960-1970 state of race relations and race conflict on campus, Blauner drew attention to the differing analytic frames often used then by (even liberal) white academics and students of color (1972, p.276-278).
...(For) the liberal professor ... racism connotes conscious acts, where there is an intent to hurt or degrade or disadvantage others because of their color or ethnicity ... He does not consider the all-white or predominantly white character of an occupation or a n institution in itself to be racism. He does not understand the notion of covert racism, that white people maintain a system of racial oppression by acts of omission, indifference, and failure to change the status quo. The Third World definition of racism ... focuses on the society a s a whole and on structured relations between people rather than on individual personalities and actions. From this standpoint, the university is racist because people of color are and have been systematically excluded from full and equal participation and power - as students, professors, administrators, and, particularly, in the historic definition of the character of the institution and its curriculum. *Of course, it is uniquely visible, accessible and objectionable to us, a s faculty of the University of Michigan.
These different perspectives still exist. What is this concept of institutional racism?
.
.
.
institUmal rI t is not new to argue, as have a number of scholars of race relations, that individual racial attitudes or behaviors must be analyzed in the context of organizational and societal parameters and frames of reference (Alvarez and Lutterman, 1979; Carmichael and Hamilton, 1976; Jones, 1970; Knowles and Prewitt, 1969; Schwartz and Disch, 1970; Omi and Winant, 1986; USCCR, 1981). Much like other forms of human behavior, racism would not persist a s an individual attitude or behavior were there not organizational and societal norms teaching, supporting, and rewarding such activity. The establishment and maintenance of racial difference, and the political, economic and cultural dominance of white people and groups, is part of the history of our nation. No serious student need be reminded by an examination of the history of colonization and its impact on Native Americans and Latinos, or by a re-reading of the Constitution and other founding documents of the Fkpublic, of the ways in which support for white superiority and domination, slavery and a non-citizen class of people of color is part of our birthright as a nation. Nor do the facts of subsequent generations of white people's political and economic privilege and dominance, and the deprivation and oppression of people of color need retelling. But it often is more difficult to see how this racially discriminatory history is sustained in the present, and how large-scale institutional structures currently operate to "pass on" and reinforce historic patterns of privilege and disadvantage and dominance. In Figure 3, Feagin and Feagin emphasize the especially potent roles of Direct Institutionalized Discrimination and Indirect Institutionalized Discrimination in this process (1986, p. 28). "Direct Institutionalized Discrimination refers to organizationally-prescribed or communityprescribed actions which have an intentionally differential and negative impact on members of subordinate groups... carried out... routinely by a large number of individuals guided by the rules of a large scale organization" (1986, p. 30). Examples include deliberate efforts
11
Figure 3. TYPES O F DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOR EXTENT OF IMBEDDEDNESS IN LARGER ORGANIZATIONS
NOT A T ALL
-
*
ENTIRELY
I
--
ENTIRELY ~ate,;;~n;arion
Smallgroup discrimination
(Type 8)
Rare?
Rare?
NO7 AT ALL
Direct institurionalized discriminarion (Type C)
l n d i r m innitutionalized discrimination .
(Type 0)
-
Types of discriminatorybehavior.
to track (or counsel) minority students into certain colleges and universities and into certain career paths, or to exclude minority content from the curriculum or social life of an institution. Of even greater subtlety, and therefore interest to those of us working within manifestly "liberal" and "non-discriminatory" organizations, is Indirect Institutionalized Discrimination. This category "refers to practices having a negative and differential impact on minorities and women even though the organizationally prescribed or community-prescribed norms or regulations guiding these actions were established, and are carried out, with no prejudice or no intent to harm laying immediately behind them. On their face and in their intent, the norms and resulting practices appear fair or a t least neutral" (p. 31). It is important to emphasize the minimal role that conscious intent or personal prejudice plays in Indirect Institutionalized Discrimination, since many people (white people, especially, and certainly much of the white judiciary) continue to think of racism a s involving conscious discriminatory purposes. The very point of institutional racism is that organizational procedures can have discriminatory impact even if individual actors a r e unaware of such impacts or are non-discriminatory in their personal beliefs, and even if their behavior appears to be a fair-minded application of "race-neutral" or "colorblind" rules and n'orms.
12 Examples of such subtle racism in organizational operations include denying minority scholars access to faculty positions because of their lack of "appropriate" or traditional credentials (which credentials were denied them because of prior discrimination), or because they lack some attributes of white males that are assumed to be relevant for certain positions but which, on examination, may not be. I t also would include acts of omission, such a s the failure to vigorously recruit minority studentslscholars, the failure to generate hiring criteria more appropriate to the pool of minority scholars, or the failure to confront racism when it occurs; such failures subtly reinforce the continuation of discrimination. Given our legacy of racial oppression and disadvantage, apparently fair and racially neutral or color-blind policies and practices continue to -,
have discriminatory impact. In order to overcome racism, self-conscious anti-discriminatory actions are required; and they in turn will require changes in current organizational structures and processes.
III. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS PROMOTING INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN UNIVERSITIES. Understanding institutional racism in universities requires attention to the general nature of these organizations and their operations. Moreover, a thorough and coherent diagnosis should not only identify the institutional nature of racism in these organizations, but should also point the way for change. Drawing from a framework first generated by Terry (1981), we suggest that five elements of all organizations' operations influence universities' policies and practices, including those that affect members of different racial groups. These elements are: mission, culture (not identified as a separate element by Terry), power, structure and resources. This certainly is not the only model or typology of complex organizations that could direct diagnostic and change planning. Tichy reviews a series of useful examples on the way to creating his own emphasis on the technical, political and cultural sub-systems in complex organizations (1983, especially Chapter 2). Baldridge and Deal's analysis of change processes in higher educational institutions uses a taxonomy which has several points of overlap with Terry's (1975, taken from Udy): it includes goals, environment, technology, formal structure and group-individual factors. Our
preference for Terry's model (with modifications) is based on its heuristic value in noting specific elements which could be the basis of local college/university or unit diagnoses and change efforts. The model, and specific elements of the five-part taxonomy, is presented in Figure 4. Mission refers to the official and unofficial vision and purposes of the organization, as these purposes or goals are reflected both in written policy statements and informal understandings and priorities. The emphasis on strategic planning, with regard to market concerns, program development and human resource management, generally flows from or creates clarification of an organization's mission, a s it may be challenged by current circumstances and future options. Moreover, most organizations have several different sub-missions, and the complementarity or balance among them becomes quite critical, a s in the ways in which different universities seek to satisfy the tri-partite commitment to research, teaching, and public service. Mission may become a focus of conflict when vigorous debates center on the relative priorities of these three standards for excellence, or when public and private universities differentially commit themselves to research productivity, undergraduate education or public service a s priorities. Gross (1968) indicates how faculty members and administrators in different institutions may differentially rank goals such a s training young scholars and researchers, maintaining university prestige or doing applied research, depending on the public or private status of their college/university. In addition, internal conflict may occur when different university units (e.g., Engineering, Social Work and Liberal Arts) espouse different goals, or when various constituencies (e.g., students, faculty, administrators) rank goals very differently. Mission-centered conflict also can result from divergent public pressures, a s when white and Black or Latino people (or other people of color) and their political representatives seek different racial compositions for the student body, faculty and administration of the university, or promote different instructional, service and research programs. All organizations also develop a culture that permeates institutional functioning (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Van Maanen and Barley, 1984). The organizational
FIGURE 4: UNIVERSAL ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS
MISSION Statement of goals and purposes Vision of the future Source of legitimacy for status quo or for change Relates organizational goals to broader society's goals Includes multiple or conflicting goals or subunits Relatively not open to debate Official (manifest) or unofficial (latent) purposes CULTURE Dominant belief systems reflected in values, rituals, technology, styles and customs Norms for "proper" behavior and criteria for success Degree of monoculturalism or pluralism of the approved culture Standard for the allocation of rewards and sanctions Includes alternative (complementary or conflicting) cultures based on age, gender, race, class, etc. May include procedures for negotiating dominant and alternative cultures "Rules of the game" Belief system justifying basic organizational tasks and procedures POWER Formal decision-making hierarchies and procedures Degree to which access to power hierarchy is closed or open Degree to which power hierarchy is open to people of different race, gender, class, internal status, age, etc. Constituencies that influence power-holders Degree of grass roots participation in key decisions Procedures for dealing with alternative power bases, formal (unions) and informal Decentralized unit control
STRUCTURE Division of labor among units and subunits, and related roles Technology for achieving organizational goals (pedagogy) Networks of social interaction and communication Planned activities that help accomplish basic tasks Boundary systems mediating organization's relationship with the external social and physical world Procedures used to achieve goals RESOURCES Materials required to accomplish organization's goals People Money Plant and facilities Raw materials and markets Information
15 culture consists of those core values which are reflected in the common understandings, assumptions or preferences regarding how people are expected to behave in the organization
-
from dress to deportment, whether competitively or cooperatively, whether caringly or sneeringly (Tichy, 1983). These preferences may, of course, differ at different status levels and for different task assignments within the organization. College and university cultures help define the unique styles of different educational institutions, a s Clark points out in his research with small innovative, liberal arts colleges (Clark, 1970). Organizational cultures are deeply rooted in the history of each college or university, and serve to give special meaning to life a t a particular institution (Dill, 1982; Masland, 1985). As many other organizations, a large university generally exists with several different sub-cultures simultaneously operative and potentially in conflict: a t least a dominant culture and a counter-culture, in which the latter often serves a s "a safe haven for the development of innovative ideas (Martin and Siehl, 1983, p. 52)"; a faculty culture and a student culture; a scientific culture and a humanities culture; an academic culture and an athletic culture, etc. The power element in an organization is manifest in its decision-making structures and processes. The typical hierarchial and centralized organization concentrates formal power a t the top, in the hands of a relatively small number of persons
- usually white men.
Other actors in the
system also exercise formal power, generally as the agents of senior stakeholders. Just how much latitude middle level managers and administrators have, a s well a s whether their power is formal or informal, is a clue to the level of participatory or decentralized decision-making in the system. Regardless of how tightly controlled the organizational power system is, lower level employees (front-line services providers) always have some discretionary power, and can implement or not implement higher level decisions, can engage in compliance or sabotage, etc. (March and Simon, 1958). In the modern university, administrative power typically is located in central offices ruled by a white patriarchy of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, but these decision-makers often are dependent upon Collegiate Deans or Department Heads for the implementation of new policies and procedures. Faculty members have minimal opportunity for decisional input in university policies,
16 and only are able to exert formal institutional influence at the sub-unit level. Their decisional roles generally are limited to the curriculum and their own research programs. Especially in the classroom, however, they have unilateral and often exclusive power to decide what to teach, and how to do it. Students, the nominal clients of the institution, have little power to affect major decisions. So, too, are lower level staff members (some of whom have very significant impact on students) generally excluded from decisions. Organizational structure refers to those procedures, technologies and activities that define the ways in which the organization acts to meet its goals. The definition of the functions and roles of specific units, through which decisions are implemented, constitute the core of organizational structures. The social network of units and subunits, arid their lines of communication and social interaction, represent the threads by which various units and activities are integrated. Reflecting the power system, university structures often are highly decentralized, and multiple activities organize the life of faculty, students, and staff members. The dominant instructional pedagogy, an activity explicitly focused on realizing the organization's educational goals, typically involves high faculty autonomy and one-way transmission of knowledge to students in isolated classrooms. Resources are those goods, people and funds (capital) that constitute the raw materials that organizations transform into finished products or services. The degree to which an organization is a material-processing or people-processing system helps determine just what resources are crucial to its activities (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For universities, people (students, faculty and staffs), and funds (private and public), are among the most crucial tangible resources, with the development and renewal of plant and equipment also occupying a lot of administrative energy. Most organizational theorists and researchers would agree that these five elements are basic to all organizations, although many would use different labels and names (Baldridge and Deal, 1975; Katz and Kahn, 1978). Scholars disagree, however, on which of these elements is most likely to be dominant; i.e., which most influences the others. As a theologian and social ethicist, Terry himself emphasizes the primacy of mission and culture (1981); the structural-
functional school of social thought emphasizes the role of structure and culture; and power elite theorists emphasize the vital driving force of power in organizations. In addition, some observers would argue that the university primarily reflects the organization of wealth and power in the society a t large, and that an elite capitalist structure lies a t the root of contemporary and historic patterns of institutional racism. While we are quite sympathetic to the latter point of view, and to the powerful role of external influences, in this paper we elect to focus attention on the internal organizational system of the university andlor college. These five elements can be examined separately, but they are interdependent with and generally reinforce one another. In terms of our specific concerns, they fit together to create what Katz has called a "web" of organizational discrimination (1978, p. 75). Thus, for instance, the mission of a university influences its culture and vice versa. Moreover, if the resource base changes dramatically the mission might change (as in the search for a "smaller but better" ) ~ then the structure itself might university in the wake of fiscal crises of the early 1 9 8 0 ~and follow suit. If the culture promotes inadequate respect for or unfair treatment of people of color, it is unlikely that the mission will articulate (explicitly) a concern for racial justice. If the mission and culture do not express a concern for reducing racial injustice or ignorance, it is unlikely that resources will be allocated to such an agenda on any other than a temporary and crash basis. Without specifically allocated resources, structures and power systems are not likely to operate in ways that pursue anti-racist goals and practices. At the same time that this set of interdependent elements operates in an integrated fashion, there is also constant internal contradiction and conflict in diverse, complex organizations. Multiple missions and cultures exist, and subsidiary ones constantly struggle overtly or covertly with the dominant tradition. For instance, universities seek to pass on the history and traditions of their society a s well a s to prepare students to make new history and create or a t least adapt a new social order. The culture of the young student and the culture of the middle-aged professional strive to co-exist. Although formal power structures represent and extend the prevailing culture, the organization is populated with myriad informal influence arrangements. Interest groups of all
kinds curry favor and wheedle special deals that depart from and may even sabotage the decisions and policies of the formal system. Such contradictions and conflicts in the organization's dominant patterns of operation are essential points of access and opportunity for people committed to change, for here is where the greatest potential for innovation and reform lies. Thus, a s we discuss the pervasive and powerful character of institutional racism in universities, we constantly seek to identify the sources of contradiction and deviance from this dominant pattern. These inconsistencies, whether or not they are manifest in overt conflict, present us with the hope, the opportunity and perhaps the resources (including conflict) for change. In Terry's own language, racism is evident when a group intentionally or unintentionally (1981, p. 124): perpetuates an unclear andlor dehumanizing mission (M) refuses to share power (P) denies appropriate support and challenge, and maintains inflexible and unresponsive structures ($3) inequitably distributes resources to another raciavethnic group for either group's supposed benefit (R) rationalizes (any of) the(se) process(es) by blaming or ignoring the other group. To whi\ch we add: promulgates a monocultural or exclusionary set of valuesfstyles (C) With this overview in mind, we now discuss the operations of and evidence for institutional racism within each of these organizational elements of organization of colleges and universities. Figure 5 provides examples of institutional racism present within each element.
19 FIGURE 5: INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS
MISSION Lack of explicit attention to justice and racial equity a s a goal Lack of recognition of plural goals Commitment to the status quo... of the society and the institution Creators are limited to whites CULTURE Monocultural norms for success are promulgated No explicit rewards for anti-racist behavior of the faculty, staff Diversity and excellence are seen a s competitive1 contradictorylplayed off Alternative cultures are not explicitly recognized or promoted Stance toward "racial incidents" is reactive Rituals and technology reflect w h i t . and Eurocentric dominancelexclusivity (graduation ceremonies, athletic mascots, pedagogy, etc. POWER Power holders in senior positions are overwhelmingly white Informal access to the power hierarchy is limited to the "white male club" Constituencies of people of color have no formal access to power holders Protests by students of color are seen as trivial and disruptive and are dealt with via short term resolutions Sub units are not required to deal with racism proactively STRUCTURE Opportunities do not exist for (re)training the white faculty to deal with students of color Social networks of the faculty generally exclude people of color Traditional pedgagogies for classroom instruction are unaltered Social relations among students of different races are not seen a s a university wide concern. If they are so seen, they are seen a curriculum concern Curriculum does not explicitly address issues of racism No coherent policy of response to racial harassment exists An Office of Minority Affairs exists but is not a central part of the university structure RESOURCES Funds generally not available to support new anti-racist practices Community and physical settings usually include pervasive racism Active recruitment of students and faculty of color does not exist Post-recruitment support for students and faculty of color is minimal
Mission The mission statements of colleges and universities are expressions of the vision of why the organization exists and what it seeks to achieve. They are likely to be highly abstract and sometimes vague statements of generally agreed upon principles and goals. Most statements of mission advocate transmitting Western cultural traditions, advancing knowledge, providing an education to the young, and performing public service. In general, they speak more to the conservation of tradition than to the creation of change. The emphasis on preserving and passing on the traditions of Western (Eurocentric and Anglo-Christian) civilization reflects higher education's origins in service by and for privileged white males. Although recent history has extended college to more people of color and to women, little systematic attention in general education requirements is given to Asian, African and Southern American civilizations, although some concern for international and global problems may be expressed. Likewise, Hispanic, Black and Native American civilizations and traditions seldom are mentioned specifically a s vital elements of the U.S.'s cultural tradition. Mission statements rarely are debated or discussed vigorously, except in times of major change, major reallocations of external resource bases, dramatic alterations in relations with state '
or federal governments, or presidential transitions. Yet, daily matters of what and how knowledge and wisdom is sought (e.g., which cultural traditions and epistemolo~@es),who is to be educated (which regional, racial, gender and socioeconomic groups), what public services are to be performed (e.g., for which interest groups or stakeholders) and what leadership should be committed to doing (e.g., what characteristics and commitments they should reflect), are precisely the cornerstone issues and conflictual choices that underlie a university's mission. For the most part these crucial issues are dealt with by default, typically via omission rather than specific commission, and thus the stage is set for the promotion and continuation of established traditions, including racism promulgated in the larger society of which the university is a part. Jackson and Holvino (1988) emphasize the importance of establishing a clear mission or a concrete vision for the direction of change in institutions, especially when the changes involve
21
matters as complex a s anti-racism or multiculturalism. They also provide several competing images and definitions of organizations that are monocultural (committed to enhancing the dominance, privilege and access to those in power who are white and male, etc.), nondiscriminating (committed to bringing people of different cultures together without changing the way things operate) and multicultural (committed to diverse and equitable distributions of power and influence that actively support the elimination of oppression). Although some institutions of higher education include in their mission statements a deliberate and conscious policy to fight injustice, a commitment to go beyond non-discrimination to a multicultural, anti-discrimination or pro-social justice stance is rare in other than a few religious, private and small colleges. In large universities, this oversight may create conflict with subunits that do explicitly state an emphasis on service to traditionally oppressed or excluded constituencies (most notably Schools of Social Work, Education, Public Health or Community Service). The inclusion of a deliberate and articulate commitment to reduce institutional racism appears to be a high risk act for a contemporary public and secular university. I t often appears to be a partisan agenda, anathema to the university's desire for a non-controversial stance and the maintenance of an illusion of value-free research and learning. It often appears a s a change-oriented agenda, anathema to an institution devoted to conserving and transmitting the cultural and intellectual heritage of a nation. And it often appears to be an ideological agenda, anathema to an institution committed to transmitting information and factual knowledge in a "non-ideological" way (yet within the prevailing societal value system and organizational culture).
Culture The culture of contemporary colleges and universities reflects, for the most part, the core values of the society/community with which they operate. Indeed, one basic mission of a university, a t the apex of an extensive system of public and semi-public education, is to prepare the young for (at least partial) acceptance of and participation in the dominant culture - with individual freedom, democratic governance, etc. The socialization of the young into conformity with adult values does not occur without conflict, however, and the intergenerational tensions that
mark the university reflect both the.cultura1 distance between these age groups a s well a s their differential access to organizational power and autonomy. Generally the ruling values and modes of operation in the university are those of white, Western and Eurocentric civilization. They are not necessarily seen a s such; people who are not aware of the existence and shape of white culture may see these a s universal moral principles or behavioral norms. Nonetheless, a s Katz points out (1988, p.10): The white culture that exists in the synthesis of ideas, values and beliefs coalesced from descendents of white European ethnic groups in the United States. White culture is the dominant cultural norm in the United States and acts a s the foundation of our institutions. The truth is that the white cultural system is one system and yet many people believe it is the only system.
A particular (positivist) version of the scientific method has also come to dominate university life and the scientific curriculum - physical, biological and social. In the search for the authority and expertise of universal principles grounded in empirically established facts, whole systems and their elements are subjected to positivist and reductionist methods, whereby phenomena are taken apart into their constituent elements and then reconstructed. Distance and detachment is maintained between the knower and the (to be) known. Emotion or intuition and preference (now seen a s bias), rather than being seen a s potentially rich and productive forces in human inquiry, generally are shunned and depreciated (Keller, 1985). They ultimately are seen as biases or vices to be controlled, perhaps only of central importance to the arts. The social organization of science, based upon this rationalist and formal culture and its associated procedures, carries innumerable conflicts and tensions a s well. Individual scientific knowledge-seekers compete with one another to test, confirm andlor disconfirm one another's
.
theories. They typically work in isolation or in small cadres, with substantial conflict among competing departments, universities or schools of thought. Hierarchies of seniority and prestige, themselves often a focus of conflict, dominate the professions, the scientific disciplines and the university. As Ernst Benjamin, general secretary of the AAUP, argues (1989, p. 64): Our participation in institutional policies fostering individual entrepreneurship rather than collective responsibility has contributed to lower median salaries as
well a s to the uncertainty inherent in academic careers. Our pursuit of institutional prestige has fostered a campus climate that subordinates teaching, mentoring, collegial responsibility and mutual tolerance to the disciplinary market and institutional status. When such disciplinary prestige is taken as primary evidence of merit, scholars outside of one another's specialized tradition may no longer understand (or care) what others are doing, and no one may care for the life of the local institution or community. As these modes of inquiry and social relations dominate the culture of the university, they accompany the instructor into the college classroom. Zorn argues that the culture of the university is passed on by faculty members a s they act on and interact with students in the classroom (1986, p.8):
...most of what students learn about the faculty's values comes from observing the examples set by individual faculty functioning in the teacher/scholar role. The structure of courses and curricula, the use of language, the priorities on use of time and the mode of student-faculty interaction all convey faculty values in an implicit and sustained way that can be understood by every student. The culture of the lone and specialized expert and the moral commitment to maintain adult control of the young, is transferred into the authority of the teacher a s the font of wisdom in and out of class. This wisdom is transmitted to students, or "banked" into them in the language of Freire (1970). Seldom are students seen a s reliable resources for co-instruction of their peers and the instructor, let alone a s having expertise or wisdom based upon their own life experiences. The teacher as dispassionate expert, with specialized and empirically verified information, is center stage and the primary focus of attention and control in the classroom. Moreover, the organization's support for the cultural values of academic freedom and freedom of speech are generally interpreted a s meaning that faculty members can do and say almost anything in the classroom. These same principles often are invoked to resist evaluation, or even comment upon, instructors' choices of classroom substance or procedure. Students and faculty members of different races, with different cultural values and styles, often make new and different demands on this traditional system and culture. As Kochman (1981) points out, most Black people and members of white ethnic groups are embedded in
24 different cultures than are most white-anglos. As such, these groups often have different ways of talking, relating, fighting, learning - and undoubtedly teaching and administering as well. Although anyone discussing such differences must be cautious about overgeneralizations and stereotypes, substantial additional evidence suggests that white people (students and faculty) and people of color perceive and experience university environments quite differently. For instance, in the Stanford University self-study, most of the white faculty agreed that the University administration was "genuinely committed (to) promoting multiracial understanding and cooperation", but only a minority of the Black and Asian and Hispanic faculty agreed with this statement (Stanford University Committee on Minority Issues, 1989, p. 24). There is a long history of social scientific studies, from many different public and institutional arenas, indicating that whites and people of color often disagree on whether people of different races are being treated equally, whether policy-makers or administrators are acting fairly with regard to racial issues, and whether the nation (or community or organization, etc.) is making progress on eliminating or reducing racism (see, for example, Alderfer et al., 1980; Campbell and Schuman, 1968; Schuman et al., 1985). Since most contemporary universities are enmeshed in the white-anglo culture, the entrance of substantial numbers of people of color (or of lower class origins) inevitably escalates perceptual contrasts and cultural conflict, and creates extraordinary pressures on these newer populations. These added pressures and realities in the lives of people of color (such a s racial and cultural differences and experiences of racism) typically are seen a s extra-classroom or extraprofessional issues, and typically go unrecognized and unchecked in the classroom. At best, they are seen a s matters appropriately dealt with by "student services" units, and not germane to the disciplinary or classroom agenda. Whereas alternative pedagogies and epistemologies might allow room for the expression and satisfaction of different styles of learning and relating (to knowledge and to one another), the maintenance of traditional cultures and classroom procedures creates deviance out of non-normative preferences, inadequacy out of different adequacies, and continues to disadvantage students and colleagues with different cultural styles and preferences.
Several scholars have indicated how difficult it is for students of color to negotiate the alien and often hostile culture of predominantly white colleges and universities. Allen argues, for instance, that in addition to the individual background and talent characteristics of Black students, their collegiate outcomes are influenced strongly by the organizational environment, by (1988,
...situational and interpersonal characteristics: the quality of life a t the institution, the level of academic competition, university rules/procedures/ resources, relationships with faculty, and friend support networks. These aspects of the organizational culture also are reported a s crucial to the success of Hispanic students. Fiske (1988) emphasizes the problems encountered by Hispanic students who have to find their way "in institutions built around an alien (Anglo) culture (p.29)", and Richardson et al. (1987) note that successful programs for minority students "rely on the student culture to establish an environment conducive to involvement and achievement (p.23)". In some institutions Ethnic and Gender Studies' Departments have begun to challenge the dominant culture of the (white and male) scientific establishment, to suggest the need for alternative research espistemologies and methodologies, and alternative classroom pedagogies. To the extent such Programs or Departments accept the dominant culture, but serve special interest groups, they can be maintained on the fringe of the established system. But if and when they challenge the assumptions underlying the dominant tradition they potentially create change, and thereby encounter conflict. Then they typically are characterized as ideological rather than scholarly in character, and a s social service centers for (marginal) faculty of color, rather than as meaningful loci for intellectual discourse. Debates about the intellectual viability and vitality of these Programs often reflect underlying assumptions of the superiority of white (and male) cultures and norms for scholarly pursuits. For instance, the argument that womenlfeminist and Black or Hispanic scholars might engage in a legitimately different kind of science by virtue of their gender and racial experiences, per se, and that these alternatives might contribute positively to the broader body of scientific methods and knowledge, is generally dismissed. Epps (1989) argues that the dominant culture of the university determines what the faculty will support as
26
appropriate intellectual (research and teaching) priorities. As a result, "the minority scholar is constrained by the culture of the major research university to select research paradigms, research topics and publication outlets that conform to the traditionals of institutions that have historically excluded minorities (1989, p. 24)". Thus, he notes, "African-American, Hispanic and NativeAmerican students and faculty encounter a culture that rejects them a s legitimate participants in the life of the academy (p. 25)". The dominance of a monocultural orientation in colleges and universities thus encourages unidiiensional standards of evaluation. Students and faculty are sorted by these limited, and often quite skewed, expectations. Departments and programs, a s well a s students and faculty, are ranked, like baseball teams and their players. The "star system" seldom questions the definition of star qualities, and unidimensional criteria for academic excellence are raised to a level of abstraction that is seen a s transcending considerations of race or gender. Thus, race and gender diversity can be ignored or discounted a s having no relevance to defining or achieving excellence. They may be seen as necessary parts of a diverse environment, but not a s necessary for the enrichment or modification of monocultural settings and standards. People who do not do well by the star metric are labelled as inferior -.not as different or a s valued - and generally they are perceived a s being responsible for their own mediocre or otherwise flawed and deviant status and performance to boot. The reward metric, focused predominantly on research, and research as it is determined and evaluated by a specific (usually white and male) peer group, seldom identifies combating racism a s an essential area of performance for the faculty or administration in higher education. To the contrary, serious efforts to reduce racism require new forms of research and service in the university and in the community, in K-12 education, in student services, in campus and community housing and law enforcement, etc. If service as an arena of activity is little valued it is unlikely that anti-racist service activities that extend work beyond the boundary of the university will occur, even in publicly supported systems (Checkoway, 1989). Moreover, combating racism in the classroom requires substantial new designs for teaching and learning. If
27
teaching and service are of minor importance compared to research activity, it is quite unlikely that this challenge can be met in the system "as is." All too often, efforts to achieve racial diversity are seen a s undermining the cultural commitment to academic excellence. At the University of Michigan, for instance, over the course of two years, various Presidents first articulated the need for "Excellence", then for "Achieving Diversity without Compromising Excellence," then for "Balancing Excellence with Diversity", then for "Diversity as part of Excellence", and finally for "Diversity a s a Necessary Component of Excellence." . A t each step of the way, of course, there was conflict and pressure to maintain the status quo (in language and in practice).
In a recent welcoming address to students in Yale University's Graduate and Professional Schools, Dean Rosenberg suggested that the prevailing culture of many universities could be challenged by an increased public and private "commitment to decency and civility for minorities (1988, p. 47).11 He illustrated this alternative cultural commitment with a code of conduct that students and faculty had prepared for Yale's School of Medicine (ibid.): Teaching, learning, research, and the delivery of medical care are best carried out in a n atmosphere of civil relationships. Such relationships are possible only where there is mutual respect, decency, and sensitivity one to another - students, faculty, staff, and patients. Overt racism is not only morally wrong. I t interferes with the quality of care received by patients, is debilitating to the victims, and compromises the integrity and stature of the offender. Less obvious forms of racism such a s disparaging comments, inappropriate labels, or subtle innuendoes which unfairly classify or criticize others on the basis of race are equally unacceptable. Wherever and whenever racist or insensitive remarks are heard or inappropriate actions witnessed, it should be the duty of every one of us to protest and to inform the offender about the reasons for our disapproval. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to help those who have been wronged to obtain satisfactory redress. Such affirmations of positive and proactive anti-racist behaviors are rare, and more often applauded in rhetoric than followed in practice. They do, however, provide us with alternative visions of our options. The culture of the university usually is not perceived or analyzed clearly, and it operates a s part of the "givens" or general and unquestioned assumptions by which we go about our daily business. Only when open challenges are made, or when different cultures come into contact with
28 one another, do we readily identify and critically evaluate the domains of the dominant culture. This is but one more reason it is so difficult to diagnose, a s well as to alter, the monocultural basis of institutional racism in universities.
Power The public trust of public and private universities generally is established and protected by appointed or elected boards of trustees made up of individuals from outside the academic organization. In practice, these trustees represent only a part of the general public, that part that is most white, most male and most upper middle class in origin and orientation (Ridgeway, 1968). Quite naturally, they establish policies and govern in ways that reflect the prevailing values and perspectives of these dominant constituencies. As in the political and economic spheres of the society in general, the dominant perspectives of these trustees, and the constituencies they represent, generally do not include the quest to increase racial justice a s a high priority. Where people in authority are predominantly white and male, and where authority is silent on the unfairness of this pattern and does not include explicit and concerted means of changing it, racism and sexism are present and maintained. Established authorities in higher education claim to be operating in the interest of everyone in the college and university. Again and again, however, faculty, students and staff of color assert that their needs are not met 'and that they are not treated a s favorably as are their white counterparts. Individual and institutional racism prevents authorities from fully perceiving and meeting the needs-of people of color who are part of the organization. Without representation in centers of institutional power and authority, and often having different needs and cultural styles, students of color often are alienated and regularly experience discrimination. In an extraordinarily honest self-study, MIT reports minority students' perspectives on the collegiate environment a s follows (McBay, 1986, p.5): Feelings of isolation; Insecurity about their admission because of the perception that others a t the Institute believe lower standards are used when admitting minority students;
Belief that others consider all minority students a s high risks; Anxiety about their families' ability to provide the financial assistance expected by the Institute; Perceived contempt from non-minority students, faculty, administrators, and staff; Feelings of non-acceptance by faculty; and The existence of a generally non-supportive environment in which minorities must constantly prove they are equal, both intellectually and socially. The message of isolation and rejection is obvious. Institutional racism also helps authorities rationalize why they are not meeting the needs students or faculty members of color. It typically is asserted that their special needs are inappropriate, their problems a result of their own inadequacies, their demands a call for unfair favoritism, etc. Without access to institutional power, people who are mistreated seldom can gain attention to their concerns, let alone redress. One stunning example of the kinds of demeaning and discriminatory treatment experienced by Black scholars is provided in reports of Harvard University Law Professor and constitutional scholar Derrick Bell's encounter with the Stanford Law School. While he was a visiting lecturer a t Stanford in 1986, "white students and professors, dissatisfied with his performance a s a teacher, surreptitiously created a series of lectures to supplement his course on constitutional law (Kennedy, 1989, p. 1767; Bell, 1986)". The Dean and faculty of the Stanford Law School have long since formally apologized to Bell, but that this should occur (both the level of expressed dissatisfaction and the collusion of white faculty and students in creating a covert substitute) to such a prominent Black scholar, only emphasizes the regularity with which other faculty of color must also encounter subtle and not so subtle forms of disdain and disregard. From chief executives to faculty, students and staff members a t all levels, the organizational power arrangements of universities are subject to hierarchical administrative control. As a result, Birnbaum (1988) argues, it is crucial for university presidents to go out of their way to demonstrate their commitment to a social justice and anti-racist agenda if it is to be acted on by administrative staff and faculty. Generally, he notes, presidents act vigorously only
when things go wrong; it is important to counter this trend by engaging in proactive and preventive leadership. This same theme is echoed in a report from the University of California system (Justus e t al., 1987). Regardless of the style (management or leadership) of the President and senior administrators (1987, p.59): Available research on effective faculty affirmative action, however, does stress the importance of leadership a t all levels within the university - from the chief executives to deans to department chairs ...Significantly, a t the most successful institutions we were told that CEOs, whether called Chancellors or Presidents, do make a difference; that the commitment of an institution can be measured by the relative weight the chief executive places on affirmative action success, and hisker ability to translate commitment into action. Commitment, in this arena, includes the visible exercise of both formal authority and responsibility and informal power and influence. The senior administration of a college or university, and its key deans, set the tone and context for dealing with racism and race relations on campus. Whether they do so actively or passively, overtly or covertly, by example of courageous acts or of acts of omission and ignorance, they set the stage. Administrative pronouncements and actions (especially actions, because policies are often not believed unless followed by explicit actions) can help create climates of fear or of hope, of concern or of disregard, of open discussion or of secretive conversation, of positive change or of negative retreat. They create the context and the conditions within which faculty, staff and students must deal with one another and, unfortunately, often play out their concerns and antagonisms upon one another. The authority that Presidents and Vice-Presidents have can be exercised in a variety of forms, but it often is implemented most effectively and practically via a series of budgetary and financial policies, supplemented by centrally controlled personnel policies. Although these policies and practices can have major impact on subunit programs and priorities, they also have their limits - especially in our most elite research universities. Efforts to alter the prevailing power structure of the university, such as required in challenges to racism, can be resisted readily by the decentralized academic control of specialized units (Schools and Departments). Principles of unit autonomy and academic freedom permit each major unit of a university to retain decision making
31 control over its own curricula, personnel and financial policies; thus they can resist innovations generated by the central administration on "a legitimate 'non-racist' basis (Exurn, 1983, p.390)." This delicate balance of centralized and decentralized power makes it very difficult for centrally mandated programs of change to be effective or for institution-wide changes to be implemented. At the same time, of course, it invests considerable room for innovation in local units, should they take the lead in generating programs to reduce racial injustice. It is especially difficult to mobilize a broad consensus on reducing racism in predominantly white and monocultural systems of higher education where narrowly specialized areas of expertise and departmental loyalties are the basis of individual legitimacy and influence. Thus, we seldom see progressive initiatives developing from the white faculty a t large or from faculty-led units of the system. When all the responsibility for initiating and implementing anti-racism programs remains with the central administration, the problems of unit and faculty resistance loom large. In most large universities, the faculty a s a group has little power to affect institutional priorities directly. Their role generally is limited to advice and debate on administrative decisions, and to passive (and covert) resistance to dicta with which they disagree individually or collectively. Traditions of collaborative decision-making, or multi-level involvement in partcipatory decisionmaking, are not readily represented in systems of higher education. This tradition constantly places the power of the faculty in a n institutionally reactive mode. Just a s the culture of the university supports the exercise of authoritative (and often authoritarian) power in the classroom, it reproduces that style in administrative-faculty relations a t the departmental and central unit level. Students, a subordinate group in the power structure of higher educational systems, typically are perceived by faculty and administrators as marginal and temporary members of the community. The experience of marginality, in turn, often gives students an impetus and opportunity (even a freedom) to organize and exert influence through extraordinary and even illegitimate channels. Students of color are doubly marginalized and disempowered, both on grounds of their racial as well a s student status. As a result, their only path to the expression of
32 their unique needs and desires for change may be through public protest, disruption and demonstration. The history of minority protest and challenge to racism throughout our society lends support and legitimacy to this tradition in the exercise of power in institutions of higher education (a large body of literature on student protest movements, and on oppressed social movements generally, supports this view). Indeed, in the aftermath of the current spate of "racial incidents" occuring across campuses, it is the students of color who have taken the lead in demanding institutional change. More than faculties of color, more than white staff members or faculty or administrators, students of color have correctly noted that such incidents of harassment are not incidental or unique, that they represent the overt manifestations of deeply entrenched cultural and structural racism within our institutions. When their concerns and demands have gone unheeded and unmet, a s so often has been the case when white faculty and administrators have been "caught by surprise" or have resisted change, these students have generated the initial thrust for change. The power of these students of color, stemming from their historic experience and contemporary need, has been the major energizer of change in racism in many universities. In turn, many university faculty and administrations have been prone to see these expressions of student and minority power a s illegitimate and ill-conceived, possibly dangerous to the welfare of the university a s well a s to their sense of students' more appropriate priority on classroom learning. Since the culture of the university promotes a view of itself a s a non-partisan, objective and non-political system, it (administrators and faculty and students in the dominant cultural group) normally is shocked and outraged a t a moral level by political protest of any sort, and especially from students - the most temporary and non-expert members of the system. When the students are people of color the emotional reaction often is even stronger.
Structure The organizational structures of most colleges and universities create a large number of decentralized units defined by particular academic specializations. These specialized units, and the behavior of faculty members associated with them, are heavily influenced by external forces,
especially their national scientific andlor professional societies. To the extent that prestige and merit are based upon evaluation standards rooted in these disciplinary and professional associations, faculty members are more likely to invest in these "cosmopolitan" reference groups than in "provincial" arenas within the local university. The trend for the most prestigious faculty
to invest externally heightens the degree to which local units and departments become "feudal estates"; they often are seen a s the concern only of those faculty who have been "left behind", and as such faculty influence is once more trivialized. This dynamic also reduces faculty commitment
to their unit, particularly a s it involves changes requiring greater time and energy for "local" or "provincial" pursuits. However, these semi-autonomous local units, buttressed by concerns for faculty autonomy and academic freedom, remain the arena for most of the faculty's exercise of decisional authority. Some prestigious senior faculty always have private access to key decision-makers, and their "invisible influence" can be very effective. To alter racism in the curriculum, research programs and teaching pedagogies of local units generally requires challenges not only to the intellectual bases of the professions and disciplines, but also to the senior and influential faculty in these units. To the extent that the structure and technology of instruction (pedagogy) relies on teacher dominance and student obedience, lone teacher and massed students, teacher expertise and student ignorance, it establishes a structure of social relations between the faculty and students that is pernicious and destructive of mutual respect and maximum learning opportunities. This sort of limited pedagogy is systematically insensitive to many students' needs: it falls especially hard on students of color. Authoritarian control of the classroom is most destructive to students with the least power to resist such dominance; cultural insensitivity in the classroom is most destructive to students whose cultures are most divergent from the mainstream; difficulty in gaining personal contact with the faculty is most disadvantageous to students with a minimal history of positive contact with white faculty; and so on. Any form of oppression and insensitivity falls hardest on the most vulnerable members of the system; thus the "normal" workings of the
institutional structure of the classroom and the university organization most severely disadvantage students of color. Crenshaw (1989) details several ways in 'which white faculty (Law School faculty, in her experience and examples, but we think the implications a r e nearly universal) may place students of color in a "difficult situation". She argues that problems of objectification, s ~ b j e c t ~ c a t i oand n alienation of minority students occur when white faculty fail to understand that what they consider to be "objective or neutral is often the embodiment of a white middle-class world view (p.3)." Crenshaw labels this unawareness (or disregard) of the race or class basis of one's approach to the world or to academic subject matter "perspectivelessness." Objectification occurs when discussions are framed a s simple exercises in the application of general rules, and when students are required to keep their comments within that system of rules. Since most legal, social and academic rules predominately reflect white persons' consciousness and rule-making power, and often are unfair to people of color, such exercises often require a student to "abstract herself from her identity as African-American" (ibid, p.5) and to deny or ignore much of her own experience in the world. Subjectscation ocurs when students of color "are unexpectedly dragged into the clas&oom by a n instructor to illustrate a point or to provide a basis for a command performance of 'show and tell' (ibid, p.6)." Such "testifying" not only focusses substantial (and often undesired) attention on the student, and implies that any student of color can be an expert on her culture, it also suggests limits to other areas of probable expertise attributable to that student. Alienation occurs when "discussions focus on problems, interests and values that either minorities do not share or that obscure or overlook issues that are particularly relevant to minorities (ibid, p.9)". Certainly not every student will be "touched" by every topic in the collegiate curriculum, but when problems of taxation, savings, family life, natural resources depletion, psychotherapy, congressional decision-making, illness, etc., are discussed in apparently race-neutral or race-irrelevant ways, they subtly suggest that white and middle-class ways of experiencing and coping with these issues are the only experiences and perspectives that are relevant.
35
Partly a s a result of prior discrimination in educational organizations, and partly as a result of the attitudes and behaviors of the white professoriat, students of color are generally expected to know less and perform less well than their white counterparts. People of color in a class of mostly whites often are less frequently called on to offer their ideas and questions in discussions, laboratories and studios. Not surprisingly, then, people of color generally volunteer less often to participate in classroom discussions than do their white counterparts. College and university faculty rarely receive preparatory training of any kind for teaching; they subsequently are not taught ways of creating more anti-racist or equitable approaches to classroom instruction. Only recently, for instance, have the following criteria for what constitutes equitable or multicultural or anti-racist science instruction appeared in sources like the AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER (Gardner, Mason & Matyas, 1989, p. 73): Criteria for Equitable Science Activities
. Teacher is enthusiastic and has equal expectations for all students . Written materials and verbal instructions use gender-free language. . Relevance of activity to students' lives is stressed. . .
. . . . .
"Hands-on" experience is required for all students. Small group work is used. Activity develops science process skills. Exercise does not demand one "right" answer. Activities do not utilize materials and/or resources exclusively familiar to white, male students. Career information relevant to the activity is presented. Examples of female and minority role models are included in the follow-up.
The MIT self-study highlights the cost of such inexperience, indicating that while most minority students positively evaluated the quality of their education a t the institution, they felt that faculty members' behaviors often created and escalated problems (McBay, 1986, p. 11-12). The majority of the respondents (55%) communicated generally negative perceptions of the personal and academic support provided by MIT faculty members (of the remainder, 26% indicated positive perceptions, 12% were mixed, and 7% had minimal interactions); 31% voluntarily said that faculty members expected failure or a lack of ability in Blacks; many (32%) voluntarily said that they developed negative attitudes about going for help; and some (15%) voluntarily mentioned specific racial incidents involving MIT faculty members. Comments on low expectations and incidents:
The main effect of being Black was the teachers' expectations - they think that you automatically won't make it in the class. I was very frustrated. You had to be in the absolute top to overcome that. One professor had a hang-up about Black people. I went to talk to him about a grade, and he said that "maybe you people should go somewhere and do things you people can do." This was not uncommon. Many of my friends had this happen. Some departments were worse than others. Blacks were discriminated against in some departments. I had a professor who talked about reverse discrimination and how unfair it was for Blacks to be given the opportunity when they did not deserve it. He said the Institute should not help Black students through various programs like interphase because things were not like that in the real world. He said we were given an unfair advantage. I went to him after I graduated and he apologized to me and said I was a n exception. One classmate had a professor tell her that Blacks don't do well in math because they lack spatial sense and math sense. She was a straight "A" student and this blew her mind - and mine. These experiences certainly are not unique to MIT. In addition to the necessity of dealing with racism in the classroom, it is important to deal with racism (or anti-racism) a s part of the formal curriculum. Teaching about racism has not been a required part of the curriculum in most institutions, nor has the topic of reducing institutional and individual racism been a popular concern (Takaki, 1989). Faculties in several major universities currently are debating whether or not to have a curriculum requirement focused on racism and ethnic studies. In the Spring of 1989 faculty a t the University of Michigan voted against such a requirement, while faculty a t the University of Wisconsin and the University of California (Berkeley) voted for it. In 1987, "Stanford University expanded its required Western Culture Program to include the study of minorities, women, other cultures and class issues (Maclay, 1988, p. 15).11 Stanford's recent experience with incidents of racial harassment might have had an impact on this decision. For instance, the report of the Stanford University Committee on Minority Issues notes that (1989, p.5): Many students who participated in these incidents said they simply did not understand why their actions offended minority students or how their actions could be interpreted by others on campus a s derogatory racial stereotyping.
Such "widespread ignorance about the history and culture of American racial minorities" (ibid, p.5) may be shocking, but it is by no means rare. Nor is it limited to students. Widespread ignorance is a product of the culture and structure of invisibility which surrounds people of color in a white-dominated society or organization. While it may not constitute intentional or purposive discrimination it certainly is part of the passive racism and "indirect institutionalized discrimination" that pervades life in our colleges and universities. Public ignorance of the culture and life-experience of people of color deprives and diminishes us all. People of color suffer because their culture is not represented in the institution of which they ostensibly are a part; dominant groups suffer because they fail to see or hear the full richness of the human experience. Racism mutes and sometimes obliterates the voices of people of color in two ways; directly, by denying them access to the institution or to institutional platforms for self expression, and; indirectly, by having white "experts" on people of color speak for them. To counter both problems it is important for the voices of people of color to be heard in direct and powerful ways, in the curriculum, in admissions/hiring, in discussions of public policies and issues, etc. Many faculty members, themselves socialized in predominantly or exclusively white environs, educated in predominantly or exclusively white undergraduate and graduate schools, teaching in predominantly white universities, and living in predominantly white communities do not have the knowledge and skills required to live in, no less teach in, a multicultural environment. Thus, for much of the faculty, problems arise with regard to recognition and management of the following race-related issues: How to recruit a multiracial student body into a class. Whether and how to deal with racially self-segregated seating patterns in a class. How to counsel students of color. How to deal with culturally different learning styles. How to facilitate students of different racial groups working together in learning teams.
How to respond to students of color who find traditional presentations of course material alienating or "offensive." . How to explain the lack of senior scholars of color in a given field. How to deal with a "racial incident" that occurs in class. Whether and how to respond in class to a "racial incident" that occurred elsewhere on campus. How to counsel whites who feel threatened by students of color. How to critically review course content and design in order to identify changes that could reduce racism and move toward multicultural understandings and relationships. The day-to-day acts of teaching and research occur within individual classrooms, laboratories, studios, etc., where there are deeply entrenched traditions of faculty autonomy and freedom. This emphasis on the academic freedom and autonomy of the individual faculty makes it quite difficult to challenge and change customary ideas and procedures. In the case of racism, a poorly understood, self-interest based, deeply ingrained phenomenon, it is especially dificult. For instance, consider the dilemma of a faculty member who overhears (or is told about) a colleague making a prejudicial remark to or about a student of color (or engaging in sexual harassment of a student). General norms of civility and racially appropriate behavior suggest that such remarks or actions should be confronted: gently perhaps, in an educational frame perhaps, but confronted. But what if the colleague who has engaged in such behavior is senior, and holds informal or implicit review and reward power over the would-be-confrontor? How do we deal with a lack of consensus on the meaning of racist comments (or of sexual harassment)? How do we deal with the lack of a common culture that promotes dialogue, exchange and feedback of this sort among faculty members? Under these circumstances, it is the would-be-confrontor who violates the norms of civility, who potentially tears the fabric of academic freedom, who is seen as acting in a manner disloyal to hisher colleagues and the "club", who stands the risk of arrogantly alleging that s h e h e knows things that one's colleague does not. The structure and culture of the university mitigates strongly against individual faculty initiatives to challenge racism within the ranks of the faculty itself. When challenged on its own behavior, the faculty tends to adopt a
"fortress mentality", to close ranks (and eyes and ears) against the threat from students or from deviants within its own.ranks.
All these efforts to alter the infrastructure of the educational organization require new thinking about the place and manner of teaching in the university's system of priorities. Indeed, Richardson and de 10s Santos point out the need to go beyond the recruitment of faculty of color, but to influence "colleges and universities to value diversity among their faculties and to reward good teaching (including sensitivity to cultural differences, high expectations for all students, and caring and mentoring) through staff development, recruitment procedures, and criteria for tenure and promotion (1988, p. 326)". Unfortunately, deficiencies in the skills required for effective education in a multicultural or anti-racist environment seldom are dealt with via university programs attempting to (re-)educate or influence the faculty; rather, the faculty that is already presumed to be fully competent and experienced in teaching students is assumed to be competent in teaching a diverse student body as well. Thus, by default such issues are ignored, and ignorance, denial and the continuation of racism are subtly (and perhaps unconsciously) reinforced. In universities, like other organizations, social relationships are both formally and informally patterned, and these social patterns affect processes of racial interaction, communication and influence. Patterns of social relationships often exclude faculty of color from (white dominated) informal social networks, or treat them awkardly when they are included. As social networks go, so go professional networks; thus, these practices of exclusion and awkardness .have major impact on people's professional lives and affect opportunities for promotion, advance and achievement, long after initial hiring decisions. In fact, Smelser and Content (1980) refer to a "succession of exclusions" that carry the "potential a t every point for discrimination, both overt and institutionalized, conscious and unconscious (Exum, 1983, p.394)." As a potential antidote, Blackwell (1989) emphasizes the necessity of expanded mentoring programs to aid the retention, development and achievement of faculty members of color. Perhaps proactive collegiality is a better model than mentoring, since most sustained exchanges of wisdom and caring are reciprocal rather than unidirectional. Such collegial relationships can explore the rules of the faculty game,
journals most appropriate or rewarded a s publication outlets, information about which colleagues canlshould be avoided and which deferred to, the real balance of teaching and research and service in a department, avenues for research funding, assistance in teaching or in contacting teaching assistants, and in general the "politics of tenure" (Blackwell, 1989). I t also is quite common for graduate students of color to "miss out on" important but informally communicated information concerning opportunities for funding, time-tested ways of preparing dissertation proposals and contacts with influential people in their field of specialization. When faculty (or graduate students) of color are unable to participate effectively in or influence formal and informal networks, they may form their own social and professional groups. Frequently, however, there is resistance to racially homogeneous groups of people of color. Such "caucuses" are apparently offensive or threatening to whites, even though they may be important for personal and professional identity, safety and collegiality in a white dominated environment (Blakey, 1989). The unique situation of faculty of color in white-dominated institutions results in a number of special burdens and responsibilities. The white faculty's ignorance of these "special tasks" presents serious dilemmas for the scholar of color. For instance, it is possible for most white scholars, regardless of their personal values, to do their work and live their lives without paying serious attention to racism and racial discrimination. . It is improbable that faculty of color can do the same: one's personal experience, demands from. students, community needs, and pressure to "serve the cause" create quite different responsibilities. Brooks reviews some of these special (often defined simply as service) burdens and responsibilities a s follows (1986): white students' difficult time dealing with minority professors minority students' desire for problem-solving, advice and counselling community organizationsysearch for assistance and role models pressure to address issues of special interest to Black Americans Several observers indicate that these and other special tasks create significant conflicts with traditional role definitions and with the multiple audiences who are served by and who evaluate faculty members' work (Elmore and Blackburn, 1983; Exum, 1983; Moore and Wagstaff, 1974).
41 Blakey notes, however, that whites often see the demandhequest to deal with such issues, in the definition or reward system for these service, teaching or research roles, a s political, non-objective or self-serving, and a s an excuse for not meeting traditional academic and organizational expectations (Blakey, 1989). Blackwell states the institutional duality of this situation well: "I don't think there is a campus in this country that will not dump every single thing minority on that particular person. Then we turn around ...and say, well, you haven't published enough (1989, p. 13)".
A parallel danger, but one standing in sharp contrast to non-recognition or denial of the distinctive status/situation/interests of faculty of color, is the potential for stereotyping these colleagues only a s faculty of color. Just a s minority students sometimes are expected to be (or are limited to being) expert testifiers on their culture (see Crenshaw, 1989), minority faculty sometimes are expected only to conduct research or teaching on matters related to Black or Hispanic concerns, or only to be interested in alternative scholarly paradigms. Thus, faculty of color may be "tracked" into Ethnic Studies Centers, or hired with funds allocated specifically for these purposes, regardless of their scholarly predispositions or preferences. This sort of automatic coding represents another form of stereotyping. The university organization that seeks both to recognize the unique interests of faculty of color, and to deal sensitively with the unique interests and styles of every one of its faculty members as individuals, often will confront this dilemma. While this may be a very complex dilemma, avoiding it with either polar response (non-recognition of differences or tracking on the basis of assumed differences) engages in sustained stereotyping. The structure of social and professional relations that dominate the faculty, and the classroom, inevitably permeate the student culture itself. Since the administration and the faculty generally pay little attention to internal processes in the student culture or to the racial intricacies of the student peer system, students learn to ignore these issues a s well. Students structure their lives in ways that sustain racially separated and insensitive domains; thus all are protected from discomfort...and from contact that might be enriching...and from contact that might reduce systematic stereotypes and ignorance. The inevitable outcome of these separated structures of
42
learning and living are both isolated incidents and regular actions that discriminate against students of color. It is easy to see these incidents a s isolated acts, as the behaviors of individually insensitive or hateful students. A more adequate analysis would see these incidents as a natural outgrowth of a culture, power structure and set of social and intellectual relations that teach people who are different from one another not to bother to understand or respect or work well with one another.
An interesting innovation in most university structures a t this juncture in history is a special office or offices in charge of minority group affairs. Generally such an office is in charge of the "care and feeding" (recruiting, counselling, financing) of minority students; occasionally it has
a broader organizational agenda of achieving affirmative action or of reducing institutional racism. Whatever its charge, its relative priority is indicated by its location in the academic structure, its access to resources, and related factors. If its creation is not reflected in the mission or goal statement of the university, we understand it a s an "add-on" rather than a basic change in the organization's direction. If it is a staff off~celpositionrather than a line oficelposition we understand that there is little authority or power connected to it. If it is located solely in the central administration, and not also represented in each sub-unit of the system, we know it is likely to be isolated from the places where critical decisions are implemented. If it is staffed by other'than prestigious faculty members, we understand that it is not likely to have significant impact on the majority of the faculty. If it is charged with dealing with social relationships, and not with pedagogical and curricular change, we understand it strikes a t the margin but not a t the heart of the academic enterprise. If it cannot influence (through incentives) the institution's research program, and faculty review and promotion processes, we understand it will not carry significant intellectual power. And if students (especially students of color) are not involved in its formation, staffing, and ongoing functioning, we understand it will be unlikely to reflect their unique experiences of racism in the university and their visions of how things might be different. Finally, an essential part of the organization's structure is its boundary system or interface with other, external, organizations (Brown, 1983). The influence of external social
environments on colleges and universities and their interactions with other units across organizational boundaries also involves racism. Whatever their internal focus, higher educational organizations generally are expected to ignore racist practices in other institutions. For example, the recent actions of several law schools to deny the FBI the right to recruit because of court findings of discrimination in this agency was greeted with shock, surprise, and anger. So, too, would university efforts to advocate alteration of discriminatory municipal housing, hiring or policing practices. The university that is not sensitive to issues of racism often fails to attend to the community environment that diminishes and demeans the lives of many faculty and students of color. Societal racism often affects faculty and students of color, in housing opportunities, K-12 educational systems, relations with local police departments, and access to community services. People of color who must fend for themselves in dealing with these issues encounter an alienating community a s well a s a disinterested university. Similarly, as colleges and universities more aggressively recruit high school students of color, they are likely to become involved in programs of educational assistance or improvement that inevitably draw them into potential' conflicts with community and school system practices that support racism. Consistent and effective anti-racist practices necessarily will involve universities in aiding the struggle for justice in community organizations: most are not prepared to undertake such action. In a reciprocal fashion, federal and state anti-discrimination laws and policies may have substantial impact on the internal dynamics of higher educational organizations. Unfortunately, many colleges and universities have argued that such laws should not apply to them; despite federal judicial and executive decisions that these organizations are not exempt from antidiscriminatory laws, their implementation a t the higher educational level still encounters resistance in the form of claims of institutional autonomy and the pursuit of excellence. In summary, among the most alienating realities of these institutional structures and operations for faculty of color are: the failure to receive respect from white colleagues the inability of white colleagues to discuss issues of racism
the unwillingness of colleagues to confrontJchallenge outrageously racist comments or memos made by other faculty or administrators the lack of reward for pro-actively anti-racist work the failure of white colleagues to appreciate different research priorities and a need for active engagement in racism the unwillingness of colleagues to confront racism in the community the perception that white faculty are not committed to students of color
In a restatement of the issues dealt with in this section, Payne argues that (1989, p. 21): If departments are to send the right "message" to current and prospective faculty, they must learn to ask the hard questions about the quality of interaction, social professional opportunities, cultural integrity, professional respect, common goals, social styles, aspirations, conflict, freedom and independence, entrepreneurial interest, quality of housing, and community support - all those aspects of higher education that make professional l i e on a campus attractive and self-fulfilling. To ask these questions, and to discover the answers, would do much to advance the quality of life for faculty of color. The extent to which attention to such issues might improve the life of all faculty emphasizes the degree to which none of us will be free and fulfilled until all of us are.
Resources. The key resources utilized by colleges and universities are financial, physical and human. In the process of garnering these resources higher educational organizations encounter a variety of constraints and dilemmas. Sometimes perceived constraints or dilemmas lead to efforts to shape the organization's or unit's image and program to appeal to wealthy and powerful individuals, private corporations, or public agencies. An emphasis on social change, on altering structures of social privilege and oppression, on,challenging racism, may not "sell well" to these constituencies. On the contrary, anti-racist mission statements and programs may be disquieting and alienating to people and organizations whose donations and other financial support might make a difference for key programs. They may see a university's efforts to create a plural culture or an anti-racist program a s cavilling to special interests, as "selling out" western civilization, a s bending core values under pressure, or as sacrificing excellence. Indeed, when the University of Michigan's alumni magazine printed a story about campus racial incidents, and on a negotiated agreement reached between the President and leaders of
student protest groups, several alumni responded with letters and commentary. Although some letters praised the magazine's "honest and courageous" approach, and even the University administration's commitment to dealing with racism, others adopted the critical perspective and language suggested above (MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, 1987):
...this "problem" does not warrant the attention it has been receiving. ...The regents and the administration...succumbed to the pressure. I have never seen so much bull printed in a single copy...The University's reactions to racial incidents is that of nervous Nellies'seeking refuge in phraseology and chasing their own tails. I t is, in my mind, inconceivable that the administration and the regents could accede to the demands of a group of lawbreakers...shows a lack of moral fortitude. What we've witnessed on campus by UCAR, BAM 111, Jesse Jackson and sadly, MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, is nothing more than an amoral, political partisan purge ...y our publication perpetuate(s) ignorance and bias. Rarely is there a concerted and committed effort to inform all alumni and potential funders about the university's commitments, policies, and programs designed to combat racism. Thus, the defensive and reactive posture of the university on these matters is
by alumni do&
patterns, and vice versa. As universities and colleges appeal to wealthy and powerful people for resources, they often must deal with allegations by conservative media that they pursue politics favorable to leftwing radicals and unfairly penalize conservative scholars and students. A recent WALL STREET JOURNALeditorial (1989), "The Privileged Class", is a clear example of this biased picture of higher education. This editorial, among other claims, depicts higher education's efforts to combat racism as an example of the operation of a "privileged ideology", and alleges that "radical teachers ... have insistently dominated discussion in recent years." Similar analyses by conservative media and political activists (see, for example, Finn, 1989) blame radical faculty for curricular changes that enhance student exposure to and knowledge of cultures other than the traditional white Western culture. They see efforts a t a n anti-racist or multi-cultural curriculum a s evidence that colleges are overrun by left-wing "ideological indoctrination." This argument is
46
made in the face of incontrovertible evidence of rapid globalization of the economy, communication systems and policy making, changes which require graduates to understand and deal with cultures other than one's own. Other informed observers and analysts continually have indicated that politically left-wing and actively anti-racist faculty are very much a minority in higher education and, while often outspoken, certainly do not dominate discussions or decisions on the curriculum or on campus policies in general. Nevertheless, such media perspectives and political presentations play on fears and stereotypes, and contribute to privileged groups' desires to resist higher education's efforts to control racism and to continue to develop multi-cultural learning opportunities. At the very least, they make it that much more difficult for colleges and universities to raise funds for these objectives. Research grants and contracts are an increasingly important source of revenue for both private and public universities. Most such projects are funded by government or corporate interests to achieve goals related to economic prosperity, national defense or medical and educational improvements. Research in the areas of public health, environmental quality, social welfare and poverty occur, but a t a much lower level of resources. Although support is available for studies of racial attitudes, rarely are there well-funded efforts to analyse institutional racism in different societal sectors, or policies and programs designed to ameliorate the structures of wealth and power that support racism over time. The vast majority of research funds are decided upon and allocated by powerful social institutions, most of which suffer from the same enmeshment in systems of institutional racism as universities themselves, and most of which also benefit from the racism of the status quo. Despite this situation, universities can apply pressure to fund basic and applied research in the area of institutional racism. In all likelihood, however, such opportunities will not be successful without deliberate and concerted action and without the application of pressure by collectivities of concerned constituencies in universities and communities. Student tuition is another important source of a university's financial resources. To a major extent, the ability to pay tuition is dependent upon a family's wealth, and since many
47 students of color come from less wealthy families, they often are not able to pay a s large a portion of their own tuition a s are students from white families. They also are less likely to have extra resources available for entertainment and other collegiate expenses. Thus, they are more dependent upon the largess of the university in the allocation of funds to cover educational expenses. Several scholars have pointed to the importance of an adequate financial support package to the collegiate success of students of color. Often, aid packages do not allow students of color to live comfortably and to participate fully in the institutional culture dominated by people from wealthier backgrounds. Thus, racism once again is manifest - this time in definitions of financial need. Fields provides one example from inquiries conducted in the University of California system (1988, p. 25): Expanded financial aid, better information about it and simplified financial aid processing were among the more important things that students (at California State - Long Beach) said the campus might do to help them remain in college. Note that it is not merely financial aid that is important, but notification and processing of applications in ways that are simple and that avoid additional stigma. When the university fails
to explain the reasons for such need-based grants, and its commitment to their social necessity on the basis of concerns for justice and institutional excellence, white students' images of "reverse discrimination" and unfair advantages to students of color are heightened. Public universities' appropriations from state legislatures are to a certain extent dependent upon the university's ability to satisfy the interests of concerned state officials. Because of the ways in which public policies generally favor the interests of white and upper middle class people, and their young who are college students, support for university efforts to combat racism and create a multicultural environment are, for the most part, not a priority. When state legislatures or their subcommittees do seek to analyze university race relations and their impacts, or pressure the university to reduce racism, their efforts often are seen as unwarranted intrusions on the academic freedom of the institution, or perhaps a s an example of special interest group publicityseeking. Rather than take advantage of these rare opportunities for legislative support or
48
community collaboration in a broad change effort, the university leadership generally reacts negatively, both to deny its own problems and to resist external influence attempts. Put simply, because the bulk of financial resources available to institutions of higher education do not come from people of color, or from the institutions they control, these resources are generally not allocated nor sought with an interest in combatting racism. Colleges and universities are labor intensive organizations, and faculty1stafT salaries constitute a major (and unyielding) portion of the overall budget, Most of their faculties are white and male. Most of their top administrative staffs are white and male a s well. Their clerical, secretarial, and plant staffs may be more diverse; certainly Black and Hispanic employees are concentrated here. Moreover, most of the student body is likely to be white. Of course, there are exceptions to these patterns in historically Black or Hispanic colleges, and in some urban universities. If people are a crucial resource in the labor-intensive environment of higher education, the recruitment, employment, retention and development (growth and promotion) of people of color must be a crucial issue in the creation/deployment of anti-racist resources for the organization. However, it is common knowledge that despite rhetoric and policies of affirmative action, routine recruitment and hiring practices have generally failed to employ and sustain substantial numbers of people of color in faculty and senior staff roles. When employed, many people of color fail to be affirmed and sustained in a racist environment, and often leave or are pushed out of the organization (in spirit if not in body). White faculty who are opposed to affirmative action programs, whether on principle, in particular cases, or because of a general resistance to racial change, often make faculty of color "feel uncertain about the reasons for their faculty appointments, consultantships and committee appointments...African-Americans are continuously confronted by the racist notion among colleagues that our successes are not achieved or merited, that affirmative action has allowed substandard scholars to rise to positions formerly held by meritorious whites (Blakey, 1989, pp. 18-17)". White'faculty and administrators know such conversations occur: mostly in private but not always; mostly with white colleagues but sometimes with students. Faculty of color know it
as well. Ironically, this stance does more than demean and humiliate faculty of color; it also ignores the history of preferential hiring of whites, which has itself led to problems in ethnocentrism, incompetence and inadequacy in some spheres of intellectual labor. Wilson (1987, p.3) argues that some additional reasons for the failure to make significant progress on the hiring of faculty of color rest in four widely-believed myths that often accompany faculty recruiting efforts: the myth that the problem is the "availablility" of minorities with the terminal degree (no available data sustains this assumption). the myth that minority women are "prime hires" because they represent two "protected groups". (in fact minority women often are a t the very bottom of the professional ladder). the myth that minority Ph.D.s in science and engineering are so rare that they can command top salaries and that many colleges cannot afford them (in fact they attain promotion and tenure a t a lower rate than do whites). the myth that there is no necessary correlation between commitment to equity on the part of academic leaders and the number of minorities in those leaders' student bodies and faculties. One of the reasons frequently cited for not recruiting more students or faculty of color is the lack of a suitable pool of candidates for these respective roles. Seldom is it acknowledged that the definition of the suitability of these students or faculty members affects the boundaries and make up of the candidate pool. The so-called pool is not a given, it is in itself a product of the mission and culture of the organization; and it can be redefined to enable more people of color to be included. Moreover, colleges and universities seldom take responsibility to remedy the social conditions that influence whether or not adequate numbers of people of color are included in a pool of candidates. (e.g., through work in 1ocaVregional elementary and secondary schools, job training or economic development programs). Higher educational organizations certainly have the capability (in research and service activities) to help alter those social conditions that lead to the exclusion of minorities from the pool they wish to use in selecting students and faculty members. To cite the absence of people of color in a pool of potential candidates for university positions, without taking some responsibility for the social conditions shaping the make-up of the pool, is obfuscatory a t best and self-serving a t worst.
50
It is important to expand the numbers of people of color, but not only from the standpoint of social justice or equity; it also is a matter of excellence. A diverse faculty and staff can exercise valuable modelling and leadership for others - if provided with the opportunity and support for such initiatives. Students and faculty who come from middle and upper middle-class white communities typically bring to their teaching and learning (and research and service) the racial attitudes and behaviors of their families of origin. They reflect the alienation and biases of the communities and class groupings of which they are a part. These "legacies" generally include little experience interacting a s peers with people of color, and subtle notions of their inferiority. Whites may be curious about the living patterns of people of color, but they also are awkward with and ignorant of their life styles. Under these circumstances, living and working together is a challenging and difficult enterprise. So is creating a high quality and diverse educational environment. Although many universities seek to counter this awkwardness and ignorance through dormitory and extra-curricular programs, or even in rare circumstances through the curriculum, it cannot be accomplished without the substantial presence of people of color themselves. Racial diversity also enhances academic excellence by broadening the intellectual content and methods that are part of a teaching and research program. Many people of color in colleges and universities bring with them constitutency liasons, topical interests, pedagogies and epistemologies that differ from many of their white colleagues. This occurs because of sub-cultural influences and because the values and interests of many people of color and many white people are affected by their socialization into different subordinate and superordinate statuses in the society. Intellectual diversity cannot be divorced from social diversity, and academic excellence cannot be achieved without maximum intellectual diversity. - I n pursuing intellectual diversity it is absolutely necessary to have a faculty and student body that has been socialized in different subcultures and in different socio-economic status groups - and that can and will communicate to and share their perspectives with one another.
51 Racial ignorance, awkwardness and isolation lead to a waste of key human potential and educational resources. They not only affect white students' views and relationships with students of color in the dormitories and residence halls, they affect their perceptions and expectations of these students' performance in class. They not only affect faculty behavior with students of color in the classroom, they affect faculty behavior with colleagues of color. They not only affect staff members' behavior a s they counsel, advise or otherwise serve students of color, they affect their interactions with staff members of color a s well. In general, the human capital of the university, the labor and educational resources themselves, are demeaned and limited by the institution's inability to create or take advantage of a diverse community or an anti-racist educational environment. The physical plants of most colleges and universities are located in or near white neighborhoods and predominantly white communities. These settings carry a history of racial exclusion, and often are uncomfortable environs for people of color to enter and sustain themselves within. I t is to be expected, moreover, that the a r t and architecture of these settings are generally more reflective of white and Western culture than of others. These settings further serve to make students of color feel they are in "strange territory". Even those universities located in the hearts, or on the margins, of communities of color, generally are so heavily invested in land ownership patterns that further the economic exploitation and alienation of poor and minority communities (Jacobs, 1963), that they fare no better on these dimensions. Because the post-Korean era of growth in higher education is over, resource reallocation rather than resource growth has become the dominant theme in college and university budgeting. New goals have to be pursued by reallocating scarce funds from other progams and priorities. Such changes in financial patterns are notoriously controversial and ridden with conflict, and the conflict is likely to be escalated when reallocated resources appear to benefit people of color. All the ancient stereotypes and concerns about racial inferiority and unfair advantage are likely to surface. New efforts to recruit and admit minority students, to recruit and hire and promote minority faculty, to recruit and hire and promote minority staff leaders, to achieve changes in
instructional and research programs so a s to combat racism, and to move toward an anti-racist university will involve significant battles over the reallocation of financial resources.
Summarv. Each of these major institutional elements operates in ways that pass on societal racism and that constrain the potential for change. At the same time, within each of these elements conflicts exist, a s day-to-day realities are at odds with institutional ideals, a s people of color and their allies seek improved opportunities, and as external pressures of internationalization, domestic demographics, improved h u m q resource development systems, and renewed pursuit of social justice impact on institutions of higher education. Universities are not neutral actors in this historic sequence, however; without proactive commitment otherwise, they do not merely pass on societal racism, but they also encourage and promote oppression and domination within their own institutional operations. Figure 6 summarizes this discussion by providing an overview of some of the ways in which racism may be altered in the operation of each element of higher educational organizations. The identification, diagnosis, and assessment of these patterns are necessary steps in planning changes to reduce institutional racism. Each element also carries a key to the change process, to the effort to combat and reduce racism. To the extent we can alter the mission, culture, power, structure or resources of higher educational organizations we can alter the institutional racism that permeates these organizations. In turn, a s we alter institutional racism in colleges and universities, we also alter aspects of their organizational missions, cultures, power, structures and resources.
IV. CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION* In order to create change in the well-institutionalized character of racism in higher education a comprehensive planning process is required. Anything less will lack a n integrative
*A separate paper (in preparation) will draw on the foregoing analysis to create an expanded discussion of some of the possibilities and strategies for changing institutional racism in higher education.
Figure 6: KEYS TO POTENTIAL REDUCTION O F RACISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION Mission Attend to societaVdemographic transformations that require reducing racism. Attend to racism a s a threat to institutional excellence, effectiveness, and goal attainment Attend to linkages between racism and other forms of oppression/exploitation Generate plural definitions of excellence - in research, teaching and service. Provide justification for anti-racism programs Culture Recognize and celebrate multicultural norms and practices, and distinct cultural backgrounds and styles Advance scholarly epistemologies and curricula that embrace the world views and knowledge of different cultures Respond to conflict in ways which do not seek to dominate, repress or deny differences but rather to learn about problems and cherish differences (and potential commonalities) Power Provide people of color with access to decisional arenas Redistribute power to achieve broader sharing among various stake holders, including increased power for people of color. Utilize formal and informal power to combat racism Demonstrate senior administrative, faculty and staff commitment to change Structure Alter patterns of interaction to promote collaboration across existing group and organizational boundaries Develop task designs and studylwork groups that encourage formal and informal multi-racial collaboration Develop new priorities in teaching/curriculum and research that improve responsiveness to cultural and economic diversity Develop new courses, teaching methods, research methods, and topics that seek to understand and combat racism Develop policies and practices to identify and combat discrimination and harassment generally - and radal harassment specifically Provide ongoing support for people of color to achieve excellence, as well a s to gain access to higher education Resources Seek and allocate financial resources to local efforts that promote organizational innovation and change Apply financial resources to reducing racism in research and teaching and university life a s a priority Improve recruitment and enrollment/employment to address both diversity and excellence Provide spaces that are comfortable and supportive for the gathering, collaborating, and celebrating of under-represented groups
vision and design, will lead to piecemeal and sporadic efforts, and will fail to produce lasting results. False starts and minimalist or poorly planned efforts can make a situation worse by failing to anticipate resistance, failing to confront opposition forcefully, escalating stigmatizing reactions to intended beneficiaries of new policies, 'appearing to solve problems without real substance, etc. Significant organizational change involves alterations in all components of the collegiate or university organization, including mission, culture, power, structure and resources. Even then, questions of feasibility remain; the kinds and extent of change required to significantly reduce racism may be impossible in the con'text of current organization forms and procedures. Indeed, some scholars and activists argue that universities, and racism itself, are so embedded in the political and economic structures of our society that no meaningful change is possible short of major societal transformation. Despite this potential, we think that even the limited organizational changes discussed here can have significant positive impact in and of themselves; they also can be key elements in a more sustained and far-reaching effort to alter institutional racism. When "incidents" of racism surfaced on college and university campuses the primary responses of many local administrators were focused on eliminating conflict to achieve "image management". That is, a major initial concern was to protect the image of the university, sometimes by denying the importance of events, and to indicate a high level of concern when denial could not be maintained. In a n recent issue of BLACK ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, Warren (1988) confirms this impression, arguing that "Too often, attention is directed a t crisis situations born out of daily incidents which have been ignored by all except the victims (p.56)." When it was clear that some action had to be taken, the usual first efforts were limited and short-range. Typical initiatives that were rapidly deployed included multiple meetings to talk about issues, special campaigns to recruit students and faculty of color, the commissioning of
human relations or "sensitivity" training programs, the appointment of a special assistant for minority affairs, and the development of study skills' programs for students of color (Ransby,
1987). To the extent that the issues were raised by protesting student groups, first efforts also were likely to include meetings with aggrieved students or the formation of task forces to "study" or "solve" local problems. Sometimes the gross symptoms of racism, including embarassing public conflict, can be temporarily alleviated through such piecemeal efforts, programmatic add-ons, and crash initiatives. However, these crisis-focused responses will not reduce institutional racism because they do not address the underlying organizational and institutional factors that are involved. These activities can be valuable components of more comprehensive and longer-range change programs, but by themselves they only raise false hopes for institutional change. Comprehensive organizational change to reduce racism requires the top leadership of colleges and universities to make explicit decisions that commit the organization to major change. But these changes cannot be decided upon by the senior leadership themselves; the traditional white and male dominance of this leadership cadre must itself be challenged a s part of the change process. Thus, major planning efforts and decisions must include: faculty, staff and students as well a s administrators; students and faculty of color a s well as whites; and women as well as men. , Conflict will inevitably occur as a result of such widespread participation, but plural involvement also provides ideas that are more responsive to the needs of different groups of people throughout the organization. It may begin to develop, moreover, a more legitimate and effective multicultural educational environment by its very example. If "lower-level" organizational members have to be relied upon to implement any plan organizational leaders develop, they are more likely to do so to the extent that they and their representatives have been involved in the planning process and have developed programs relevant to their needs, mindsets and resources. Efforts to reduce racism in organizations often are motivated primarily by the guilt of white administrators and faculty members, and the desire to ameliorate public protests or bad press. While such factors may contribute to initial efforts to reduce racism they are insufficient
bases for pursuing long-term and lasting change. Other motivations must be developed for this endeavor. These other motivations can be grounded in several factors, including: The costs of institutional racism to the organization, both to whites and people of color. New potentials open to the organization and all of its members by reducing institutional racism. New internal organizational rewards for members or units which undertake positive efforts to reduce racism (and/or sanctions for resistance or continued racism).
If people and organizations are operating in racist ways they must be receiving some "benefit" from such activities. I t must in some way be in their interest (real or perceived), at least in the short term, to continue such activities in the face of laws and moral codes to the contrary. Whether that self-interest is financial, positional (status), emotional, or cultural, may not matter a s much a s its existence, per se. Only change in the self-interest basis for behavior, the things that cause people and organizations to seek their own gain, will permanently cause (and support) change. This principle of organizational change is articulated clearly by the Stanford University self-study of campus racism (Stanford University Committee on Minority Issues, 1989): Good intentions are not enough ...At the departmental level, some managers find the University's pluralistic goals important and apply them to their particular office, but when others make half-hearted efforts or no efforts a t all to recruit, develop, and retain minority staff, they face no repercussions ... Until we impose real sanctions for willful failure to implement stated goals for diversity and inclusion in the workplace, the University will not be able to say that it acknowledges and opposes institutional racism - or that "bigotry is out." (pp. 9, 2 14)). As self-interests are redefined, based on a long term perspective on the future of social relations and institutional success, alternative motivations to reduce institutional racism in higher education may become more compelling. Such redefinition of self-interests also will require effective education and sustained incentives. For instance, if college or university leaders (or staff members or faculty members or students) do not experience rewards or gains for anti-racist behavior they are not likely to sustain that behavior for long. Similarly, if college or university leaders see very clearly the costs of racism for themselves and their institution, they will not
(unless simultaneously seeing major gains) continue to engage in or support the operations that generate that cost. At the more micro-level of influencing the behavior of faculty members, Monaghan argues for the self-interest principle in the following terms: Colleges and universities should offer incentives and rewards to faculty members who show a commitment to cultural pluralism, and should hold administrators more accountable for advancing institutional goals to improve opportunities for minority scholars. (1989, p.Al8) Certainly there are potential costs to a meaningful change effort, and planning and implementation designs must be cognizant of the pain or threat that will occur to some peoples' values and interests, and their resultant resistance. It is our experience that while members of institutions of higher education often are ignorant of the long-term costs of current racist policies and procedures, and of the potential long-term gains of change, they are very sophisticated (often to the point of paralysis) regarding the short-term costs (and political resistance) involved in an anti-racism effort. The attempt to plan and c a n y out a long-term change program can focus on some of the key challenges to institutional racism summarized in Figure 6. These organizational change options are grouped according to the 5 core elements of higher educational organizations outlined in Figure 4 and discussed in detail earlier. - Since these 5 core elements, a s well a s the many individual program suggestions, interact with and are co-dependent upon one another, an integrated strategic plan is absolutely necessary. Implementing these or other organizational change options also requires making a number of tactical choices, choices that determine the shape and conduct of a local change effort. A detailed discussion of such tactics is beyond the scope of this paper, but the reader is referred to our forthcoming companion piece for elaboration. Briefly, the following issues must be dealt with: The balance between (or combination of) top-down and bottom-up change approaches. The number and types of groups or constituencies to be involved in planning and implementing the change effort. The role of people of color, especially students, in designing responses to their experience of racism. The role and visibility (and accountability) of senior administrative officers and senior faculty
The degree and type of involvement of external organizations and individuals in planning, implementing and evaluating the organizational change effort. The balance between (or combination of) persuasion and coercion a s change approaches. The stance taken toward those passively resisting or actively opposing anti-racism efforts. The maintenance of a thrust on countering counter organizationaUinstitutiona1 racism in the face of probable efforts to focus on individualistic analyses and solutions. The linkage of anti-racism efforts to other change programs, such a s anti-sexism and general designs to improve student learning and faculty working environs. These problems and possibilities in the effort to reduce racism in institutions of higher education impress upon us the delicate, complex and immense natures of this task. At the same time, the cries of protesting students, the often muted voices of faculty and staff of color, and the analytic perspective offered earlier impress upon us the necessity of undertaking this task. Decisions made within the university both reflect and influence decisions made by students, faculty and administrators, policy makers and just plain citizens in their daily work and activity outside the university as well. T h e future of social justice and peace in our entire society and the world, not merely inour systems of higher education, rest on the efforts we can make to acknowledge, understand, and reduce the racism within our universities and colleges.
REFERENCES Alderfer, C., Alderfer, D., Tucker, L. and Tucker, R. Diagnosing race relations in management. THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. 1980, 16(2),135-166. Allen, W. GENDER AND CAMPUS RACE DIFFERENCES IN BLACK STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, RACIAL ATTITUDES AND COLLEGE SATISFACTION. Atlanta, Southern Educational Foundation, 1986. Allen, W. Improving Black student access and achievement in higher education. THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1988, 11(4), 403-416. Astin, A. MINORITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 1982. Alvarez, R., & Lutterman, K. (Eds). DISCRIMINATION IN ORGANIZATIONS. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1979. Baldridge, V. and Deal, T. Overview of change processes in educational organizations. In Baldridge and Deal (Eds.), MANAGING CHANGE IN EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Berkeley, McCutchan, 1975. Bayh, B. Let's tear off their hoods. NEWSWEEK, 1989, April 17. Bell, D. The price and pain of racial perspective. STANFORD LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL. 1986, May 9, 5. Benjamin, E. Faculty responsibility for enhancing minority participation in higher education. ACADEME. 1989, 75(5), 64. Birnbaum, R. Administrative commitment and minority enrollments: College president's goals for quality and access. THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1988, 11(4), 435-458. Blackwell, J. Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. ACADEME. 1989, 75(5), 8-14. Blakey, M. The professional caucus: Place of refuge, source of change. ACADEME. 1989, 75(5), 15-18. Blauner, R. RACIAL OPPRESSION IN AMERICA. New York, Harper & Row, 1972. Brooks, R. Life after tenure: Can minority law professors avoid the Clyde Ferguson syndrome? UNIVERISTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAW REVIEW. 1986, 20, 419-427. Brown, D. MANAGING CONFLICT AT ORGANIZATIONAL INTERFACES. Cambridge, Addison-Wesley, 1983. Campbell, A. and Schuman, H. RACIAL ATTITUDES IN FIFTEEN AMERICAN CITIES. Ann Arbor, Institute for Social Research, 1968. Carmichael, S., & Hamilton, C. BLACK POWER: THE POLITICS OF RACISM IN AMERICA. New York, Vintage Books, 1976.
Checkoway, B. Unanswered questions about public service in the public university. THE UNIVERSITY RECORD. 1989, February 6, 10-12. Clark, B. THE DISTINCTIVE COLLEGE: ANTIOCH, REED AND SWARTHMORE. New York, Aldine, 1970. Clark, K., and Plotkin, L. THE NEGRO STUDENT AT INTEGRATED COLLEGES. N.Y., National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students, 1963. Crenshaw, K. Foreword: Toward a race-conscious pedagogy in legal education. NATIONAL BLACK LAW JOURNAL. 1989, 11(1),1-14. Dill, D. The management of academic culture: notes on the management of meaning and social integration. HIGHER EDUCATION. 1982, 11, 303-320. Elmore, C. and Blackburn, R. Black and white faculty in white research universities. JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1983, 54, 1-15. Epps, E. Academic culture and the minority professor. ACADEME, 1989, 75(5), 23-26. Exum, W. Climbing the crystal stair: Values, affirmative action, and minority faculty. SOCIAL PROBLEMS. 1983, 30(4), 383-399. Feagin, J., & Feagin, C. DISCRIMINATION AMERICAN STYLE: INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND SEXISM. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1986. Fields, C. The Hispanic pipeline: narrow, leaking and needing repair. CHANGE. 1988, 20(3), 202 7. Finn, C. The Campus: "An island of repression in a sea of freedom". COMMENTARY, 1989, September, 17-23. Fiske, E. The undergraduate Hispanic experience: A case of juggling two cultures. CHANGE. 1988, 20(3), 28-33. Fleming, J., Gill, G. and Swinton, D. THE CASE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Washington, D.C., Howard University Press, 1978. Friere, P. PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED. New York, Seabury Press, 1970. Gardner, A., Mason, C. & Matyas, M. Equity, excellence and just plain good teaching. THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER. 1989, 51(2), 72-77. Gross, N. Universities a s organizations: a research approach. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1968, 33, 518-543. Hurst, F. REPORT ON UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATION, Amherst, UMass, 1987. Jackson, B., and Holvino, E. Multicultural organizational development. Ann Arbor, Program in Conflict Management Alternatives (Working Paper #1I), 1988. Jacobs, J. THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES. New York, Vintage, 1963.
Jones, J. PREJUDICE AND RACISM. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1970. Justus, S., Freitag, S. & Parker, L. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY. 1987. Katz, J. Facing the challenge of diversity and multiculturalism. Ann Arbor, Program in Conflict Management Alternatives (Working Paper #13), 1988. Katz, J. WHITE AWARENESS. Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 1978. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY O F ORGANIZATIONS. New York, Wiley, 1978. Keller, E. REFLECTIONS ON GENDER AND SCIENCE. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985. Kennedy, R. Racial critiques of legal academia. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. 1989, 102(8), 17451819. Kochman, T. BLACK AND WHITE: STYLES IN CONFLICT. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981. Knowles, R. and Prewitt, K. (eds.) INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN AMERICA. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1969. Martin, J., and Siehl, C. Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS. 1983, Autumn, 52-64. Maclay, K. Berkeley faculty considers mandatory minority course. BLACK ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 1988, 5(20), 15. Masland, A. Organizational culture in the study of higher education. THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1985, 8, 157-168. McBay, S. THE RACIAL CLIMATE ON THE MIT CAMPUS. Cambridge, MIT, 1986. MICHIGAN ALUMNUS. 1987, 94(1). Monaghan, P. Action, not just policy change, seen needed to improve minority scholars' opportunities. THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 1989, 35(26), A17-18. Moore, W. and Wagstaff, L. BLACK FACULTY IN WHITE COLLEGES. San Francisco, JosseyBass, 1974. Omi, M. and Winant, H. RACIAL FORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES. London, Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1986. Payne, H. Hidden messages in the pursuit of equality. ACADEME. 1989, 75(5), 19-22. Peterson, M., Blackburn, R., Gamson, Z., Arce, C., Davenport, R., & Mingle, J. BLACK STUDENTS ON WHITE CAMPUSES: THE IMPACTS OF INCREASED BLACK ENROLLMENTS. Ann Arbor, Institute for Social Research, 1978.
Ransby, B. University goes for pushbutton solution. AGENDA, 1987, October, 7-18. Richardson, R., & de 10sSantos, A. The guest editors' introduction: From access to achievement: Fulfilling the promise. THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1988, 11(4), 323-328. Richardson, R., Simmons, H., & de 10s Santos, A. Graduating minority students: Lessons from ten success stories. CHANGE. 1987, 19 (3), 20-26. Ridgeway, J. THE CLOSED CORPORATION. New York, Ballantine, 1968. Rosenberg, L. A battle far from won. YALE. 1988. November, 44-47. Schuman, H., Steeh,, C., and Bobo, L. RACIAL ATTITUDES IN AMERICA: TRENDS AND INTERPRETATIONS. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1985.. Schwartz, B. and Disch, R. (eds.) WHITE RACISM. New York, Dell, 1970. Smelser, N. and Content, R. THE CHANGING ACADEMIC MARKET. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1980. Stanford University Committee on Minority Issues. BUILDING A MULTIRACIAL, MULTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY. Stanford University, 1989. Steele, S. The recoloring of campus life. HARPERS MAGAZINE. 1989, February, 48-55. Sudarkasa, N. Black enrollment in higher education: The unfulfilled promise of equality. In Dewart (Ed), THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA. 1988. New York, National Urban League, 1988. Takaki, R. An educated and culturally literate person must study America's multi-cultural reality. THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 1989, 35(26), B 1-2. Terry, R. The negative impact on white values. In Bowser & Hunt (Ed), THE IMPACT OF RACISM ON WHITE AMERICANS. Beverly Hills, Sahe Press, 1981. Thomas, G. BLACK STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: CONDITIONS AND EXPERIENCES IN THE 1970s. Westport, Greenwood Press, 1981. Tichy, N. MANAGING STRATEGIC CHANGE. New York, Wiley, 1983. United States Commission on Civil Rights, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE 1980's: DISMANTLING THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION. 1981 (Clearing House Publication #65). . Vetter, B., Babco, E., and Jensen-Fischer, S. PROFESSIONAL WOMEN AND MINORITIES. (3rd edition) Washington, D.C., Scientific Manpower Commission, 1982. WALL STREET JOURNAL. The privileged class. 1989, September 19. Warren, S. One step forward, two steps back. BLACK ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 1988, 5(6), 56.
Wilson, R. and Carter, D. MINORITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Washington, D.C., American Council on Education, 1988. Wilson, R. Recruitment and retention of minority faculty and staff. AAHE BULLETIN. 1987, February, 2-5. Zorn, J. Ethics, values best imparted by example. THE UNIVERSITY RECORD. 1986, July 7, 8.
P r o g r a m o n C o n f l i c t Management A l t e r n a t i v e s W o r k i n g Paper O r d e r Form P l e a s e s e n d me t h e f o l l o w i n g p a p e r s ( i n d i c a t e n u m b e r o f c o p i e s ) : The P r o g r a m o n C o n f l i c t Management A l t e r n a t i v e s M a l e and Female V i s i o n s o f M e d i a t i o n ( U e i n g a r t e n , Douvan) E q u i t y a n d t h e Change A g e n t ( C h e s l e r ) L e v e l s o f M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t (Weingarten, Leas) S e l f - h e l p Groups as M e d i a t o r s o f P a t i e n t - P r o v i d e r C o n f l i c t i n H e a l t h Care (Chesler) Beyond Agreement (Kohn) I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g C o n f l i c t Management A l t e r n a t i v e s ( M a n r i n g ) A c t i o n Research i n t h e V o l u n t a r y Sector: A c t i v i s t R o l e s i n S e l f - H e l p Groups (Chesler) I 1 M u l t i p l e L e v e l s o f C o n f l i c t i n E v e r y d a y L i f e 1 # : A C o n f e r e n c e Summary A H y b r i d M e t h o d f o r F a c i l i t a t i n g N e g o t i a t i o n (Chen, U n d e r w o o d ) M u l t i c u l t u r a l O r g a n i z a t i o n Development (Jackson, H o l v i n o ) I n n o v a t i v e P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Neighborhood S e r v i c e O r g a n i z a t i o n s (Checkouay) F a c i n g t h e C h a l l e n g e o f D i v e r s i t y and M u l t i - C u l t u r a l i s m ( K a t z ) C h a n g i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Racism: A Uorkshop f o r U n i v e r s i t y S t a f f Leaders ( C h e s l e r , Hyde) M e d i a t i n g E t h n i c M i n o r i t y C o n f l i c t i n t h e Classroom: The Case o f B l a c k s a n d J e u s (Schoem, S t e v e n s o n ) D i f f e r e n c e and S o c i a l J u s t i c e : A F e m i n i s t P e r s p e c t i v e (Douvan) The P o l i t i c s o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n ( R a b e ) R e t r i e v a l C o n f e r e n c e on Changing O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R a c i s m a n d Sexism (Lewis, L i n z i e , Chesler) N e i g h b o r h o o d Needs and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Resources: Neu L e s s o n s f r o m D e t r o i t ( C h e c k o u a y ) A l t e r n a t i v e D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n / C o n f l i c t I n t e r v e n t i o n and S o c i a l J u s t i c e (Chesler) R a c i s m i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n I: An O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s ( C h e s l e r , C r o w f o o t ) Strategies f o r Social Justice: A R e t r i e v a l Conference ( w i t h the C o n f l i c t C l i n i c , I n c . ) ( C u n n i n g h a m , C h e s l e r , I s r a e l [PCMAI a n d P o t a p c h u c k , B l e c h m a n CCC II I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f l i c t and t h e I n d i v i d u a l ( W e i n g a r t e n ) Means o f Empouerment i n I n d i v i d u a l s , O r g a n i z a t i o n s , a n d C o m m u n i t i e s : R e p o r t on a R e t r i e v a l Conference ( G e r s c h i c k , I s r a e l , Checkouay) A C l e a r a n d D a n g e r o u s Enemy: How F e m i n i s t S o c i a l Movement O r g a n i z a t i o n s Respond t o t h e New R i g h t ( H y d e ) P o l i t i c a l R e p r e s s i o n i n t h e Developing World: Does t h e M i l i t a r y P l a y a R o l e ? (Reagan) R e s o l v i n g C o n f l i c t s Betueen Farmer and C r e d i t o r s : An A n a l y s i s o f F a r m e r C r e d i t o r M e d i a t i o n P r o c e s s ( V a n Hook) Empouerment a n d Empowering Processes: A Theory Development Seminar S e r i e s (Schulz, I s r a e l ) R a c i a l / E t h n i c / C u l t u r a l Issues i n Dispute Resolution (Chesler)
Address
.....................................
P l e a s e send 32.50 f o r each paper o r d e r e d t o cover s h i p p i n g and c o p y i n g c o s t s . Mail f o r m a n d p a y m e n t t o The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , PCMA, 4 0 1 6 LSLA B l d g . , Ann A r b o r , M I
